VULGARISMS 

AND 

OTHER ERROES OF SPEECH. 

TO WHICH IS ADDED 

A EEYIEW 

OF 

MR. a. WASHINGTON MOON'S 

'DEAN'S ENGLISH' AND 'BAD ENGLISH.' 



SECOND EDITION. 




y 

- PHILADELPHIA: 
CLAXTON, REMSEN, AND HAFFELFINQER. 

1869. 






B'2-, 



Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1869, by 

CLAXTON, EEAXSEN & HAFFELFINGER, 

in the Clerk's OfBce of the District Court, for the Eastern District of Penr sylvauia. 



PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 



Particularly in reference to a work of this kind 
is it the public's interest, as well as the author's, 
that the conclusions reached be just. For this rea- 
son his duty and his pleasure concur in prompting 
him to set at rest questions of moment wherein the 
public may have been misled by the reviewers. 

To 'The National Intelligencer,' in whose re- 
view of ' Vulgarisms and other Errors of Speech' 
fairness is conspicuous, the author is indebted for a 
correction regarding a verb which was irreconcila- 
ble with the sense of the passage in which it had 
been used, and he has made a corresponding cor- 
rection in this edition of the book. 

Two reviewers of two journals whose fairness was 
equally conspicuous with that of 'The National In- 
telligencer,' drew a conclusion against which the 
author protests as unwarranted by fact. They re- 
marked, that the author having said in his Preface, 
that an error of speech is not necessarily a vulgar- 

(iii) 



IV PEEFACE TO- THE SECOND EDITION". 

ism, nor a vulgarism necessarily an error of speech, 
had misnamed his work, ' Yulgarisms and other 
Errors of Speech.' The title, they said, implies 
that vulgarisms are errors of speech, and the asser- 
tion that vulgarisms are not necessarily errors of 
speech, therefore conflicts in sense with the title: 
The reviewers were mistaken as to the conclusion 
deducible from the passage from which they quoted, 
simply because they did not read on a little fur- 
ther. Had the author said no more than they 
quoted, their point would have been sustained; but 
their premises were false through incompleteness. 
The whole passage is this : " For, be it known, an 
error of speech is not necessarily a vulgarism, nor 
is a vulgarism necessarily an error of speech, 
although a vulgarism does generally combine with 
the fault of exclusive use hy the uneducated, tuat of 
being intrinsically wrong.''^ A vulgarism having 
been described by the author as being generally an 
error of speech, he was consistent in calling his 
work, * Yulgarisms and other errors of Speech.' 

The reviews throughout the country, however 
faulty occasionally, from want of knowledge or of 
acumen, were marked by the same spirit of fairness 
which characterized those mentioned, save in two 
instances, in which, two papers, of much more literary 
pretension than performance, condemned the au- 
thor's work as ill-executed and useless; both of them 



PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. V 

going even so far as to attempt to throw discredit 
on all verbal-criticism. One of these attacks, 
called through euphemism a review, was answered 
by the author, and the other was answered by a 
self-appointed champion, whom the author did not 
then know, but with whom he has since then had the 
pleasure of becoming acquainted. After all, it may 
well be questioned, as it has been by many men 
eminent in letters, whether it is ever worth an au- 
thor's while to answer any review, no matter how 
flagrantly unjust ; whether it is not better to re- 
member and act upon the teaching in Bentley's 
apophthegm — " no man was ever written out of 
reputation but by himself." An author's best an- 
swer to a malicious review is the sale of the first 
edition of his work, and the public's demand for the 
second. Criticism, if it but possesses the quality 
of fairness, is to a sensible author no source of re- 
gret, but on the contrary of gratulatiou. When 
correct, he receives instruction through it, and when 
incorrect, he should in consideration of its fairness 
be tolerant of it. Men should prize even the inten- 
tion to do justice, as they prize whatever is beauti- 
ful, the more that it is rare. Even unjust criticism 
every author should expect, should indeed desire, 
and, failing to draw it forth, feel that his work has 
been in a measure a failure. What higher praise 
can there be than the condemnation of certain 



VI PKEFACE TO THE SEC0:N'D EDITION. 



people, what deeper condemnation than their 
praise I 

To the present volume is appended a review of 
Mr. G. Washington Moon^s * Dean's English' and 
'Bad English,' which the author believes will mate- 
rially enhance the value of his work. 



PREFACE. 



' Many persons, although tliey have not enjoyed 
advantages early in life, have, through merit com- 
bined with the unrivalled opportunities which this 
country presents, risen to station in society. Few 
of them, it must be thought, even if unaware of the 
extent of their deficiency in knowledge of their lan- 
guage, are so obtuse as not to perceive their deficiency 
at all, and not to know that it often presents them in 
an unfavourable light in their association with the 
more favoured children of fortune. Few, it must be 
believed, would not from one motive or the other, 
from desire for knowledge, or from dread of ridicule, 
gladly avail themselves of opportunities for instruc- 
tion. And no one who has travelled, and has seen 
everywhere, in cars, steamboats, hotels, streets, crowds 
of well-dressed, presentable people murdering the 
King's English, will say that, with all that our Pub- 
lic Schools accomplish, there is not much room for 
improvement, and that much instruction is not still 
needed. 

In view of this, the author conceived that a small 
work, treating of the most prevalent and gross errors 
\n English, would be an acceptable addition to our 



VI PKEFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION. 

people, what deeper condemnation than their 
praise I 

To the present volume is appended a review of 
^ Mr. G. Washington Moon's ' Dean's English' and 
'Bad English,' which the author believes will mate- 
rially enhance the value of his work. 



PREFACE. 



* Many persons, although tliey have not enjoyed 
advantages early in life, have, through merit com- 
bined with the unrivalled opportunities which this 
country presents, risen to station in society. Few 
of them, it must be thought, even if unaware of the 
extent of their deficiency in knowledge of their lan- 
guage, are so obtuse as not to perceive their deficiency 
at all, and not to know that it often presents them in 
an unfavourable light in their association with the 
more favoured children of fortune. Few, it must be 
believed, would not from one motive or the other, 
from desire for knowledge, or from dread of ridicule, 
gladly avail themselves of opportunities for instruc- 
tion. And no one who has travelled, and has seen 
everywhere, in cars, steamboats, hotels, streets, crowds 
of well-dressed, presentable people murdering the 
King's English, will say that, with all that our Pub- 
lic Schools accomplish, there is not much room for 
improvement, and that much instruction is not still 
needed. 

In view of this, the author conceived that a small 
work, treating of the most prevalent and gross errors 
\n English, would be an acceptable addition to our 



books on education; especially, if incorporated in it 
were some information regarding certain improprie- 
ties of speech, which in one sense are not errors, but 
which, in another, are errors, and at once fix the 
speaker's grade as low in refinement. He thought, 
also, that the work might prove suggestive to other 
writers to occupy the same field. 

It is folly to suppose that the progress of error in 
language cannot be stayed, and that we mu?it give 
way to every innovation. Language, created by man 
in the exercise of the divine gift of the faculty of 
speech, is still a slave to execute his bidding. He 
can fashion it to serve his purpose in any direction 
that he sees fit ; and because, generally, he does not 
do so deliberately, with express purpose to accomplish 
each end in view, but does so mechanically, he is not 
less the absolute master of its destiny. It is a truism 
to say that, without innovation, there can be no pro- 
gress in language. It is not progress that any one 
should wish to impede. It is not innovation, there- 
fore, that is reprehensible, but innovation without 
good cause, and, worst of all, innovation for innova- 
tion's sake. There are, in language, progressive 
forces in the mass of the people ; conservative forces, 
in the body of the highly educated. The due pro- 
portional action of each is necessary to its salutary 
development and conservation. 



Witli few exceptions, the errors herein noticed are 
not only errors, but vulgarisms; for, be it known, an 
error of speech is not necessarily a vulgarism, nor is 
a vulgarism necessarily an error of speech, although 
a vulgarism does generally combine with the fault of 
exclusive use by the uneducated, that of being in- 
trinsically wrong. From an occasional lapse, no one, 
however well educated, is exempt; but such a mistake 
cannot properly be termed a vulgarism, unless it is 
one that is habitually made by the illiterate: it is an 
isolated blunder, associated with nothing but human 
fallibility. If, on the contrary, a word or a phrase, 
absolutely correct in itself, comes into use so current 
as to be associated with the illiterate only, it falls 
from its high estate and becomes a vulgarism; and 
its degradation cannot be in any degree redeemed, 
either by its intrinsic accuracy, or by the education 
of the utterer. A few years ago, no one of education 
would have scrupled to assent to an expression of 
opinion, by replying, " That is so ;'' but the use of 
the phrase, since that time, as a byword, has re- 
duced it to the level of the lowest vulgarism, and 
driven it out of correct usage. 

Throughout this work constantly occur the terms 
''vulgarism,'' "the vulgar," ''vulgarity.'' The con- 
nection in which they are used together, and the 
similarity of the words, coming as they do from a 



common stock, may lead some readers to think that 
the author believes them to be correlative terms. 
This is not the case. The phrase 'Hhe vulgar" has 
two distinct meanings. In one, it signifies merely 
the illiterate; in the other, it signifies the preten- 
tious : those who, to whatever station they may claim 
to belong, are in a false position. One may be illit- 
erate and not be vulgar ; one may be literate and even 
highly gifted, and yet be vulgar 3 and lastly, one may 
be both illiterate and vulgar. One out of his sphere, 
occupying a position for which he is not fitted by 
nature or by education, or by both, is vulgar, whether 
he was born in a hovel or in a palace. Vulgarity 
depends entirely on the relative refinement of the 
sphere in which one moves. Complete immunity 
from it is the privilege of no society. Therefore, to 
one sense of the phrase " the vulgar," must the idea 
of 'Vulgarity" be attached. To the other sense, 
meaning merely the illiterate, belongs the word 
" vulgarisms/' which may more properly be termed 
illiteracies. 

The reason why those very errors which are not 
held to be disgraceful as belonging to one class of 
people are rightly imputed as disgraceful to another 
class, is solely because the sense of justice in all 
society holds none accountable for ignorance of what 
they never had an opportunity to learn, while it 



visits with ridicule those who, surrounded by all the 
usual accompaniments of high station and by facili- 
ties for acquiring education, seem not to notice that 
in the brilliant setting of their life is absent the 
jewel which, only, can confer lustre on rank. The 
world sees the sham, laughs at it, and probably will 
laugh at it to the end of time. 

If, before reading these lines, persons of more gen- 
eral information than those for whom this work is 
designed, should have chanced to read the introduc- 
tory chapter on ' The Study of English/ they may 
have been surprised that the author should not have 
qualified his praise of English erudition by mention- 
ing the fact that a late Report to. Parliament proves 
that, in the English Public Schools, Colleges, and 
Universities, there is no special training in the lan- 
guage of the country. * The author, deeming that 
the fact does not militate against the assertion which 
he made in that chapter, purposely omitted mention 
of it there, in order to avoid a long digression, and 
reserved his notice of it for this as the more appro- 
priate place. 



* The 'Report of Her Majesty's Commissioners ap- 
pointed to inquire into the management of certain Col- 
leges and Schools,' presented to Parliament, March, 1864. 



In tlie chapter on ' The Study of English' there is 
to be found no assertion that in English institutions 
of learning sufficient attention is paid to the study of 
the vernacular. Not entertaining that behef, the 
author could not have made that assertion. Long 
before the Report to Parliament made public the state 
of affairs, he was sure of the fact which the Report 
establishes. It had from time to time been de- 
plored by English writers. English schools, then, 
are admitted and always have been admitted by 
him to be lamentably deficient in affording special 
training in the native language. What he asserted 
was, that the thoroughness of English education 
(thorough except in the one particular under con- 
sideration), created a large body of conservatives in 
language, and this he reaffirms. 

Many believe that school is a great treasury of 
knowledge, whence each scholar bears away all the 
wealth of knowledge which he will ever be capable 
of transporting. Much more properly may it be 
likened to a mental gymnasium, whence the faculties, 
improved by daily exercise, go forth into the 
world and grapple with realities tasking all their 
powers and, after accomplishing wonders, still leave 
undescried possibilities for the efforts of future 
minds. Why is it that the study of the Greek lan- 
guage, for which few of those who learn it find use 



after quitting the academic halls, has always been 
held in high estimation ? Simply because the perfec- 
tion of its construction, and its philosophic genius, ren- 
der the study of it an admirable mental discipline. 

While one may admit, as the English themselves 
do, that their scholastic courses neglect the study of 
the native language, one may at the same time main- 
tain that the scholars themselves are a force conserva- 
tive of the language Leaving School, College, 
or University, the English youth leave them with no 
superficial instruction. In whatever they have learned, 
they are well grounded. The thoroughness of their 
training in the classical languages has been some train- 
ing in their own language ; the station which, as a 
mass, they occupy in society, is a still more efficient 
means of training in it; and many of them, after leav- 
ing the institutions -in which they were educated, pay 
special attention to it, their knowledge of other lan- 
guages being a basis for sure and rapid progress. In 
any case, being highly educated, they form necessarily 
a highly conservative body of men, and the literary 
power vested in them is more efficient from being 
centralized in large universities and cities, to which 
they, as educated men, naturally gravitate, and to 
which the country looks with deference as authority 
in language. That, in this condition of affairs, as 
compared with curs, corruption has less chance sue- 



cessfully to attack and injure the purity of the lan- 
guage, will probably be generally conceded. 

The author trusts that he does not flatter himself 
in thinking that his work is all that it professes to 
be. Whether it can effect any good, only the Public 
can decide, and to them he commits it in the hope 
of its meeting with their approbation. 



CONTENTS. 



Preface, 

CHAP. 1. The Study of English, . 
^' 2. Slang, .... 

" 3. Want of Simplicity, 

" 4. Indelicacy, . 

'* 5. Vulgarisms consisting in the inappropriate 

use of words correct in themselves, . 

" 6. Vulgarisms consisting in the contraction of 

words, 

" 7. Vulgarisms consisting in using words in a 
wrong sense, 

" 8. Vulgarisms consisting in the mispronuncia- 

tion of anglicized words, . 

" 9. Grammatical errors, .... 

" 10. Grrammatical errors — continued, . 

" 11. Minor Grammatical errors, . 

" 12. Confounding of shall and loill, 

" 13. Use of the wrong verb, 

" 14. Use of the wrong noun, 
^ " 15. Use of the wrong word (miscellaneous), 

" lA, Single negatives and double negatives, 

" 17. Obsolete, obsolescent, and local, . 

" 18. Tautological phrases, . 

*' 19. Miscellaneous words, phrases, etc., 

" 20. Taste, 

" 21. Examples of bad taste, 

" 22. Concluding remarks. 



PAGE. 

3 



22 
34 



108 
117 
128 
134 
136 
142 
153 
160 
179 



A Review of Mr. G. Washington Moon's * Dean's Eng- 
lish ' and ' Bad English,' 185 

A list of some of the most vulgar pronunciations, . 235 



CHAPTER I. 

THE STUDY OP ENGLISH. 



The study of English by those whose native 
language it is, has increased in favour since, of 
late, in England and in the United States, the 
question has been discussed, Whether, even con- 
ceding that too much attention is not paid to 
Greek and Latin, too little is not paid to the 
modern languages, and especially to English. 

In England, when education was possessed by 
few, those, of course, belonged to the aristo- 
cracy, to the gentry, and to the ''middle classes," 
whose homes and society were schools of the na- 
tive language. Under the circumstances, it is 
natural that the classical languages should have 
unduly enlisted the attention of teachers, as 
necessary to be imparted to youth ; not only on 
account of their intrinsic beauty, and that of the 
works composed in them, but on account of the 
iuvsight which they give into English itself.* 

* " There be Uvo special considerations which keep the 
Latin aud other learned tongues, though chiefly the Latin, 



6 VULGARISMS 

Such education, inapplicable in the course 
of time to England, — for, wi'>/li increased know- 
ledge among all classes, she has outgrown the 
ideas upon which it was based, — was always in-, 
applicable to this country, where stability of 
government depends, not on mere Democracy, 
but on an educated democracy; — the capacity 
of an educated ^eo^le to administer a Govern- 
ment "of the people, by the people, and for 

in great countenance among ns : the one is the knowledge 
which is registered in them ; the other is the conference 
which the learned of Europe do commonly use by them, both 
in speaking and writing. We seek them for profit, and keep 
them for that conference ; but whatever else may be done 
in our tongue, either to serve private use or the beautify- 
ing our speech, I do not see but it may well be admitted, 
even though in the end it displaced the Latin, as the Latin 
did others, and furnished itself by the Latin learning. 
' For is it not indeed a marvellous bondage to become ser- 
vants to one tongue, for learning' sake, the most of our 
time, with loss of most time, whereas we may have the very 
same treasure in our own tongue, with the gain of most 
time ? — our own bearing the joyful title of our liberty and 
freedom, the Latin tongue remembering us of our thral- 
dom. I honour the Latin ; but I worship the English."— 
Mulcaster, Master of St. Paul's School, as quoted by Isaac 
Disraeli, in his ^ Amenities of Literature.' 



AND OTHEE ERRORS OF SPEECH. 7 

the people ;" — where education must be general 
in its diffusion, and practical in its character. 

Nevertheless, education in this country, ex-- 
cept that in the Public Schools, partook of the 
English practice of cultivating the classical 
languages, and comparatively neglecting the 
vernacular; until within a very few years, 
when commenced a powerful and still progres- 
sive movement, in favour of introducing many 
practical branches of study. This movement has 
already effected great changes in the former 
scholastic courses, and one evidence of its power 
is to be found in the interest awakened to the 
study of English. Even within a few months, 
this interest has been manifested anew, by the 
publication of several works which have at- 
tracted attention both in England and in this 
country, and given increased impulse to the 
study. 

The first of these works, consisting of a 
series of articles contributed by the Rev. Henry 
Alford, Dean of Canterbury, to an English pe- 
riodical called ' Good Words,' and afterwards 
revised and published in a volume entitled ' The 
Queen's EngUsh,' brought out a host of critics 



8 VULGARISMS 

in England and Scotland. An interesting liter- 
ary tournament ensued, in wliicli the lists were 
relinquished to Dean Alford, and a Mr. G, 
Washington Moon, now well-known, by whom- 
the Dean, after a spirited contest, was signally 
worsted. Yet, although Mr. Moon convicts the 
Dean of many flagrant errors, the work of the 
latter contains much valuable information. It 
is, however, a dangerous work to peruse, unless 
the reader possesses some critical knowledge. 

Dean Alford's book had also the effect of in- 
citing Mr. Edward S. Gould to publish his work 
entitled ' Good English.' Mr. Moon's new-gained 
celebrity led to his writing critical essays for ' The 
Round Table ; ' in the course of which essays, 
he criticised the style of the Hon. George P. 
Marsh's contributions to 'The Nation.'* 

That these writings have had, and will con- 
tinue to have, a beneficial effect, in instructing, 
and in leading to still farther study of our lan- 
guage, is very evident. But although, consider- 

* At the present writing, there is progressing, in 'The 
Round Table,' a controversy between Mr. Moon and Mr. 
Gould, in relation to the general accuracy of Mr. Gould's 
book. 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. \) 

ing their character, they enjoy a wide circula- 
tion, it is relatively circumscribed, as is also the 
case with the standard works by Karnes, Camp- 
bell, Blair, Trench, Harrison, Lowth, Priestley, 
Walker, Sheridan, and others. Their influence 
on the people, to whatever degree existing, is 
indirect. In general, the points discussed con- 
sist of niceties in language, far above the popu- 
lar range. Most philologists suffer to pass un- 
noticed, as if unworthy of their attention, errors 
which they know must eventually establish them- 
selves in the language ; for none know so well 
as they, that language is made chiefly by the 
people,"^ and that whatever error in it the 
people definitively stamp with their approval, 
ceases to be spurious, and becomes genuine coin- 
age. 

Our language has heretofore sensibly im- 
proved, and it is now remarkable for its energy, 
copiousness, and elegance. It is important that, 
while we admit it may still farther advance, we 
should put in action forces conservative of its 

* The great philosoplier, the great man of science, the 
poet, and others, often coin words by the prescriptive 
right of genius. 



10 VULGARISMS 

purity, and determine that, while it shall not be 
restricted in aught that will add to its power, it 
shall be kept from degradation. 
^ To this point, Mr. Moon, in his Preface to the 
fourth edition of his book, approvingly quotes 
Schlegel, who says: ^'The care of the national 
language is at all times a sacred trust. Every 
man of education should make it the object of 
his unceasing concern to preserve his language 
pure." Dean Alford remarks, that " the language 
of a people is no trifle. The national mind is 
reflected in the national speech." 

It especially behooves us, who possess no 
Academy, like that of the French, no cities in 
which literary power is concentrated, to know, 
and to act upon the knowledge, that we lack the 
conservative elements which maintain the integ- 
rity of a language. Granting the continued ex- 
istence of Paris and tiie French Academy, and 
that of London and the English Universities, 
the people in the rest of the respective coun- 
tries containing those centres of learning might 
speak what jargon they please, the French lan- 
guage, and the English language, would be pre- 
served in their purity, although, necessarily, 



AND OTHER, ERRORS OF SPEECH. 11 

they would cease to be progressive.* From 

such centres go forth the laws — not ajffirmed by 

decrees, but by usage — that regulate and con- 

'trol the language of a country. They, in the 

* Dean Trenoh says : " The French Academyj contain- 
ing the great body of the distinguished literary men of 
France, once sought to exercise such a domination over 
their own language, and if any could have succeeded, 
might have hoped to do so. But the language recked of 
their decrees as little as the advancing ocean did of those 
of Canute. They were obliged to give way, and in each 
successive edition of their Dictionary to throw open its 
doors to words which had established themselves in the 
language, and would hold their ground, comparatively in- 
different whether they received the Academy's seal of 
allowance or no." 

The Academy, no doubt, expected and attempted too 
much; but that it exercises great influence on the lan- 
guage should be apparent. Is it to be supposed that 
works so admirable as the tomes which the Academy 
elaborates with the greatest care have no influence on 
French writers ! Through them, the influence of the 
Academy is felt. The Academy exercises just such a 
conservative influence as does any body of the educated 
— with this advantage, that it has the weight derived from 
the literary distinction of its members, from organization, 
and from publication. That it sways great power is sus- 
cept'ble of demonstration, but the fact stands to reason. 



12 VULGARISMS 

cases instanced, may not be able to teach the 
cockney elegant English, nor the hadaud^ 
elegant French ; but, at least, the languages are 
safe from the illiterate of both capital and pro- 
vince. The provincial language of England and 
of France has never, as is the case in our coun- 
try, been the same as that of the great towns 
and cities ; but if pure language has not permeated 
the provinces, it has, to make amends, been pre- 
served in its own purity. 

In this country, the same language is spoken 
from the Atlantic to the Pacific, from the Lakes 
to the Gulf of Mexico. What regulates it ? 
The best usage of the mother- country is not 
generally regarded as binding, and no city, no 
district of our own, can lay down law which will 
be obeyed. We are, at the same time, a people 
inhabiting a country vast in extent, vai*icd in 
climate, amid new scenes, and surrounded by un- 
precedented elements of progress: circumstan- 
ces, each of which is capable of causing great 
accessions to and alterations in language. All 
the causes which, unheeded, tend to degrade a 

* The Parisiau cockney. 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 13 

language, are in full action among us, and 
scarcely any of the conservative ones to keep 
them in check. We read and write prodigiously. 
^ We are great talkers of slang and contemners 
of usage. We have no court of appeal.* 

This country is certainly destined to be inhab- 
ited by a greater number of English-speaking 
people than will occupy any other portion of the 
globe; judge then of the influence, for good or 

* When the writer remarks that there is, in this coun- 
try, no recognized authority in English, he refers merely 
to the non-recognition of a superior usage enia.nating from 
some city, district, or country. He does not mean to 
assert that there is among us no recognition of fixed gram- 
matical principles, which, saving some few trifling points 
unsettled, regulate the mutual dependence and arrange- 
ment of words and clauses, however much the rules de- 
duced from them may be infringed, and still leave the 
language comprehensible. To be explicit then : — Ameri- 
cans recognize, in pronunciation, no supreme authority 
or standard ; but, in the construction of their language, 
they recognize a standard of fixed grammatical principles 
and rules. In England, France, and the other countries 
of Europe, both are recognized. The reason for the dif- 
ference is that there is not, in this country, as there is in 
Europe, a distinct body of people of education ar d refine- 
ment, whose words make the law in words. 



14 VULGAEISMS 

for evil, that it must exercise on our mother- 
tongue. Would it not he well if we, until there 
shall exist among us some recognized authority, 
some supreme arbiter in language, should individ- 
ually exercise greater care in it, and also invite 
discussion of it among ourselves, thereby ex- 
posing flagrant popular errors of the day, which 
otherwise will soon become engrafted on it. 

There is, in this country, attending the re- 
action in ideas about education, danger of tem- 
porary error, from which England is exempt, 
OY/ing to the conservative power mentioned, de- 
rived from the amount, character, and central- 
ization of education in that country. * 

* If we cousider the youth of this country, as compared 
with the age of England, we shall be able, without humili- 
ation, to acknowledge that, in the aggregate, the educa- 
tion here is inferior. But whether we can or cannot per- 
ceive it, will or will not acknowledge it, it is a fact. To 
use a homely illustration: — If education in the respective 
countries could be boiled down in separate pots, England's, 
or, more properly. Great Britain's would afford the larger 
yield. Her books, her newspapers, her magazines, show 
by their number, and by their character, that they cater 
for an ag:?r?'2:ate of cultivated taste greater than that in 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 15 

The reaction unhappily chimes in with an idea 
too popular here, depreciatory of the higher 
orders of education. Owing to the circumstance 
that the people haye not realized the object to 
be attained by a finished education, because the 
education which generally they possess, answers 
their present needs, an undervaluation of it for 
its own sake, of all knowledge that is not con- 
sidered practical, — by which expression is meant, 
not directly convertible into money ^ — has become 
quite pi'evalent. 

This is an extreme to be as carefully avoided 
as the one which devotes to the study of the 
classics the greater portion of the time at the 
disposal of most of our youth, thereby neglecting 
the so-called practical, and really valuable, studies 
which are happily coming more and more into 
vogue. 

this country. Her ancient civilization, the structure of 
her society, her great seats of learning, the incentives 
which she holds forth to literary distinction, fully account 
for this fact. We have many people educated ; she has 
fewer, but better educated. Her education being central- 
ized in her Universities, and in her large towns and cities, 
exerts a commanding influence over the language and 
literature of the whole country. 



16 VULaAHISMS 

Edward Everett said, in some remarks wliich 
he made before the Cambridge High School: "I 
hold, sir, that to read the English language well, . 
that is, with intelligence, feeling, spirit, and effect ; 
to write, with despatch, a neat, handsome, legible 
hand, (for it is, after all, a great object in writing 
to have others able to read what you write;) 
and to be master of the four rules of arithmetic, 
so as to dispose at once with accuracy of every 
question of figures which comes up in practical 
life,— I say I call this a good education ; and if 
you add the ability to write pure grammatical 
English, with the help of very few hard words, 
I regard it as an excellent education."* 

How many reach this standard? Even if 
many do, what might have been true, would, with 
a higher grade of general education, cease to be 
true. He ^ho thus defined educatioUj when it 
reached a certain point, to be good, and when it 
reached a certain other point, to l)e excellent, 
would have been one of the last men to argue that 
a higher education is not desirable, and that 
the opportunity to acquire it is not to be eagerly 
seized. 

* Everett's Works, Vol. IT., pp. GOl, G02. 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 17 

It is a great error to hold tliat all education 
beyond reading, writing, and arithmetic, is a 
waste of time. This observation may at first 
sight appear to the reader to ofier a gratuitous 
insult to the good sense of the people ; but it is 
nevertheless true, that thousands of persons who 
should know better entertain that opinion ; and 
this is the case among many of those constitu- 
ting what is called the business-community, a 
very large class in this country. 

All knowledge is practical. It is a chain con- 
sisting of an infinite number of links, of which 
we cannot precisely determine the relative value. 
Ignorance of this, conspiring with the reaction 
that has set in against "non-practical educa- 
tion," can hardly fail to prove gravely prejudi- 
cial to the cause of erdightenment in our country. 



VULGARISMS 



CHAPTER II. 



Before treating of errors in speech, the way 
for the subject should be prepared, by exposing 
certain practices which, although not errors in 
the sense in which the word was previously used, 
are hurtful to language. 

First in order among these shall be noticed — as 
it is first in importance — the language called 
slang, which pervades too much of the conversa- 
tion even of the refined. Harrison remarks, that 
" Colonization has a tendency not only to add to 
the words of a language, but also to corrupt it. 
New scenes, new objects, new habits of life, call 
forth new expressions, at the same time that 
words, in many cases, deviate from their original* 
signification. Many words have crept into the 
English language, in America, which are quite 
new to it; others have changed their meaning; 
others are merely fanciful. From America, we 
have adopted to progress, to effectuate. Clever, 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 19 

in America, has gained a meaning "which it does 
not express in England ; as, a clever house, a 
clever son, a clever cargo. Slick, hedge, boss, 
absquatulate, are from America ; nor do we quite 
understand what is meant by a tall smell." 

It would be easy to cite many examples 
in which words have either deviated unwarrant- 
ably from their primitive meanings, or, retaining 
those meanings, have subserved the purpose of 
slang. 

It is not desirable that people should cease- 
lessly strive to speak with elegance every sentence 
which they utter ; if they did, all conversation 
would be stilted : but it certainly is desirable 
that slang should not be recognized as an accept- 
able addition to the language of the educated. 
In the writer's hearing, not long since, a very 
respectable man, who has some pretension to 
education, inasmuch as he is a publisher, found 
QO better expression to describe the position of 
an influential person in a certain business, than 
to say, that he was '' at the top of the heap." 
I Slang is especially offensive in woman, to whom 
I we are pleased to ascribe delicacy of taste. Yet 
how often do we not hear hei introduce it into 



20 VULGARISMS 

conversation ! "He has the stamps," said, lately, 
in a public place, a young woman who would 
have been mortified to think that she had pro- " 
duced a bad impression even on a bystander. 

On occasions, very rarely, a slang expression 
may with propriety be used, to describe what is 
otherwise indescribable. Nothing but Mfalutin 
can at present convey to us the idea of the most 
vapid sort of bombast; nothing but spread- 
eagle, that of the style of the Fourth-of-July 
oration of the past; nothing but shoddy^ the 
grandeur of vulgar insignificance. But let even 
these, and similar words, die with the occasions 
that gave them birth. They may be tolerated in 
the conversation of friends. If they may be suf- 
fered to pass there, which is questionable, they are 
inadmissible in addressing a stranger, or a slight 
acquaintance. Familiarity is insulting, and slang 
is familiar. Let it never be considered as having 
a foothold in our language, but as separate and 
apart as is the cant of thieves and gypsies. 
"You git," and "I bet," may, in the frontier-like 
life of California, serve well enough to express 
"Get out,-' and "You may rest assured that I 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 21 

will;" but a higher general civilization scorns 
such phrases.* 

Enough has been said on this topic. The 
memory of every one will suggest many examples 
in point. 

* Jfe must not be inferred from this remark, tliat civiliza- 
tion in California is of a low grade. A new country is 
necessarily settled by adventurers of an inferior as well as 
of a superior class. The former, in such a region, acquire 



a prominence which they can no longer maintain when it 
is well populated. Probably no city in the world, of equal 
size, can exhibit a population superior to that of San 
Francisco. 



VULGARISMS 

CHAPTER III. 

WANT OF SIMPLICITY. 



Next in faultiness to the use of slang, comes 
the practice of using exaggerated expressions, in 
speaking or in writing about the simplest subjects. 

In this, a certain allowance must be made in 
the case of youth, and in that of the language 
of compliment, by whomsoever used, young or 
old. Youth is so imaginative, that its enthusiasm 
irradiates whatever comes within its view ; so in- 
experienced, that it does not comprehend the 
relations of things. Compliment is so well-esta- 
blished as the language of insincerity, that, to 
< convey sincere praise, — to avoid the appearance 
of flattery, — it must be conveyed indirectly, by 
implication, or else with the frank assertion that 
what is said is not intended as a mere comjjU- 
ment. This is only another way of saying that 
compliment is the langua.ge of exaggeration, for 
truth is clothed only in the language of simplicity. 
Nevertheless, by one of those subtle processes by 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 23 

•whicli the mind seeks to deceive itself, it is osten- 
sibly given and received as sometliing, while, 
really, it is regarded as nothing. 

With all due admission of the qualifications 
.noted, the use of inapplicable terms and exag- 
gerated expressions is far too common. ^'It 
was an aiufuUi/ hot day." ^' I suffered in the 
cars, frightfully, from heat." ^' When we reached 
our destination, we had a liorrihle dinner. ' ' Why 
not go a step farther, and say, ''I was obliged to 
occupy an appalling bed for the night ?" 

This extravagant style does not always pro- 
ceed from ine:iperience of life ; it is very fre- 
quently cultivated, under the impression that it 
enhances the interest of what is said. But what 
is the real effect ? All beauty in nature, all 
beauty in art, consist in proportion, in delicacy 
of light and shade and colour, judicious contrast, 
blending into one harmonious effect. In this 
style, the matter is obscured by incongruous 
materials. Besides, the word-painter has used 
them so lavishly, that they will not last him, 
however abundant they may be. In such a 
style, the words do not represent the ideas which 
the speaker should wish to convey. They have 



24 VULGAKISMS 

no fixed value. They must be judged by tbe 
criterion of each individual's character and edu- 
cation, whereas they .should have a standard 
value. 

The most flagrant instance of this vicious* 
mode of expression, that ever came under the 
notice of the writer, was heard by him a few 
months ago, in a street-car. As the car rolled 
along, a young woman, bedizened with finery, 
and fluent in speech, descanted, partly for the 
benefit of her companion, and partly for that of 
the rest of the passengers, on the stores and 
other places of business on the route. Every 
thing attracted her attention, excited her enthu- 
siasm, and prompted her remarks. Her volu- 
bility was quite unequal to the task of keeping 
pace with the quick succession of her frivolous 
ideas. 

The first store to which she directed the at- 
tention of her companion, she called elegant. 
That was not very wrong, although the store 
was not elegant ; but, having employed a super- 
lative term to describe a thing of moderate pre- 
tensions, the next store, more attractive to her, 
received the compound epithet, splendid- elegant. 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 25 

Curious to know wliat expression could be in 
reserve, the writer listened attentively. The car 
soon passed a combined restaurant and confec- 
tionery. Doubtless, the pleasant recollection 
of some lunch after shopping, or supper after 
the theatre, flashed upon her ; for breaking forth 
into a clattering and incoherent eulogy on the 
place and its appointments, she ended breath- 
lessly with the words elegant-gorgeous. 

One of the most active agencies engaged in 
the degradation of our language is the style 
adopted by many reporters and correspondents 
for the press. It is not the stage only that 
possesses the fellow that tears a passion to tat- 
ters, to very rags. 

The fault, however, is not wholly chargeable 
to these writers ; part of it lies at the door of 
their public. The writers know — who, indeed, 
generally know so well? — what will please the 
majority of their patrons. Yet, not in every case, 
not in the greater number of cases, is this style 
adopted to please them. It is often the result — 
tolerated, if not countenanced, by many news- 
papers — of allowing e^nployes to make the most, 

in space, of every subiect on which they write: 
3 



26 VULGARISMS 

to dwell on petty details; to indulge in trite 
philosophical reflections; until the reader, in 
despair, mentally exclaims, "When shall I come 
to the point?" 

One species of this composition was called in 
a late numher of ' The Saturday Review,' tail- 
lashing. The youthful reporter is represented 
as a lion, which, having secured a precious mor- 
sel of something, it matters not what, takes it 
aside and gnaws and rends it, with growls and 
lashings of the tail. The awed spectators are to 
understand that this lion has a precious morsel, 
so precious that no lion ever had such a one; 
and, moreover, that this identical lion is the 
only one which could do adequate justice to its 
dissection. 

Such a writer is by a grain of sand reminded 
"of a desert; by a mouse, of the fur-trade. The 
subject having been chosen by him, or suggested 
to his mind by an occurrence, or forced on his at- 
tention by the revelation of a crime, — in any 
case, in all cases, — he opens the floodgates of 
his erudition, and deluges it with words. He 
"rides in the whirlwind, and directs the storm." 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 27 

Another species of this composition is over- 
laden with petty and often incongruous details, 
in the statement of the simplest matters of fact. 
If even poor John Smith's house catches afire, 
and the fire is put out in a few minutes : — " Last 
evening, flames were discovered issuing from the 
portal of the residence of our respected fellow- 
citizen, John Smith, Esq. The firemen, with 
their usual alacrity, were promptly on the spot. 
The street was soon a scene of wild commotion 
and uproar, which, with the devouring element, 
formed a toute ensemble of grandeur and subli- 
mity. The coup d'oeil soon became truly mag- 
nificent, the flames having reached a small wood- 
en shanty, next door, in which was confined a 
remarkably fine poodle belonging to Mr. Simp- 
kins, the grocer opposite, favourably known to 
the public for his superior article of teas, whose 
howls awakened the sympathies of the by- 
standers."* 

* The introduction of petty details often results in the 
blundering exhibited; in which the coiip cVceil is de- 
scribed as magnificent, when a shanty catches afire, and 
the howls of teas awaken sympathy. Touie ensemble 
should be tout ensemble. 



28 VULG-ARISMS 

Anotlier species of composition is in great 
favour with reporters, and with some of " our 
own correspondents" who write from watering- 
places, and consists chiefly of slang terms, stereo- 
typed phrases, and trite quotations. A man is a 
hiped. A woman is a feminine. A child is a juve- 
nile. A dog is a cam'^e. Fingers are c^z^zte. Feet 
are pedal extremities. Oysters are bivalves. A ball 
is a Jiop, where ''all went merry as a marriage-bell," 
while the guests "tripped it on the light fantas- 
tic toe,"* and did not separate until "the wee 
small hours ayont the twal. " f If a hotel-keeper 
is merely civil, he is "Mr. So-and-so, the gentle- 
manly proprietor." A ball was " the hop of the 
season." " The Ladies (God bless them !), were 
lovely" — "the elite and fashion" — "fair women 
and brave men" — "revelry by night" — "ban- 
quet-hall deserted." Fill up the spaces, and you 
will have such a letter, and perhaps many such 
letters are written on that plan. * 

*" The original is : — 

" Come, and trip it, as you go, 
On the light fantastic toe." 

t The original is : — " Some wee short honr ajont the 
twal.'' 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 29 

In many theatrical criticisms, such a farrago 
©f nonsense, foreign words, foreign phrases, puf- 
fery, fustian, never was strung together until 
these latter-days. 

The employment of a foreign word in con- 
versation, or in writing, is legitimate only 
when the writer has no equivalent in his 
own language. Why should we employ foreign 
words when we have equivalents in our language ? 
Why, generally, do our dramatic critics speak of 
an actor, or an actress, as an artiste f Why do 
they call the part of an actor, or an actress, a 
role? There is for using the word repertoire 
the valid excuse that we have nothing to substi- 
tute for it, except a periphrastic expression; 
but what excuse can there be for using the words 
artiste and rdle^ instead of our words, actor and 
>mctress, and part f 

Lately, there appeared a " theatrical notice " 
beginning thus : — " The Academy of Music was 
crowded last evening with an SUte and intelligent 
audience," etc. Here is a liberty ! JEUte, which 
is a noun, is transformed into an adjective by 
the writer of the notice. 



30 VULGARISMS 

There is another ridiculous thing generally 
coupled with the use of French words in our 
newspapers. Not every journal possesses type 
with the French accents, or has compositors fa- 
miliar with the accents. In consequence of this, 
French words which have accents generally ap- 
pear shorn of those necessary adjuncts. The 
words, without appropriate accents, are not 
French, any more than our English '' ^ " is "" 2," 
without the dot, or our English '■H'' is "f," with- 
out the cross. Repertoire and rdle^ written, or 
printed, without their appropriate accents, are 
eyesores to pe;.'Sons familiar with French. 

The mania for introducing foreign words, and 
especially French words, into English composi- 
tion, renders itself ridiculous in a third way. 
The words are seldom even spelled correctly. 
Whether this originates with the writers, or with 
the compositors, is of little consequence — the 
words are wrong in print. Compositors often 
receive blame for what they are not responsible. 
In certain articles, they cannot be in fault ; for, 
in those, the writers always correct their ^'proofs." 

If a writer uses wordi with which he is not con- 
versant, whether with respect to their meaning, 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 31 

their spelling, or their accentuation, the reason 
for his failure in all of these particulars is obvi- 
ous ; but what shall we think of his failure to em- 
ploy correctly foreign words and phrases, so 
common that they are met with every day? 

In many cases, we see printed in newspapers, 
aye! in books too, hors du combat, and esprit 
du corps. Yet, the simple preposition de, not the 
combined preposition and definite article — du, is 
to be found in all similar phrases in the French 
language. 

The French word sobriquet is frequently mis- 
spelled soubriquet; but this is not calculated to 
change its pronunciation materially. 

What has been said on this head, does not 
impugn our right to anglicize words as we 
please. If the French take the liberty of call- 
ing beef-steak, bifteek, and roast-beef, rosbif, as 
they do; the.y cannot take umbrage at our dis- 
figuring many of the words which we introduce 
into our language from theirs. But the cases 
of errors cited are not parallel to these, do not 
admit of this defence ; for the best English usage 
— in which the writer includes American — is to 
write esprit de corps^ hors de combat, sobriquet. 



32 VULGARISMS 

The Frencli word materiel is freqaently used 
for the French word personnel. A few weeks - 
ago, under the head of " Sacred Concerts on Sun- 
day Evenings," appeared the following sentence: 
— "Again, all of our first-class churches would 
be comparatively deserted, except for the at- 
traction of the well-trained and talented choirs 
engaged by them, and, even among the most or- 
thodox members of our churches of all denomina- 
tions, the materiel of the choir is considered as 
only second in importance to an eloquent and 
popular pastor."* 

During the Rebellion, tlie writer took to a newspaper 
an article in which he described what constitutes good 
troops ; using, in that connection, the word material, in the 
sense with which we speak of the stuff i\i2ii a man is made 
of — meaning his manly qualities. To the editor's objection 
to the word material, the writer did not demur, for it had 
been loosely employed, but he remonstrated against the 
the editor's substitution of the French word materiel; inas- 
much as that word, when relating to armies, distinctively 
signifies all the appliances used by them, guns, waggons, 
everything, just as the French word personnel, when rela- 
ting to armies, distinctively signifies all the persons com- 
posing them. Demonstration and remonstrance were 
alike unavailing : and, with a sense of comfort that,at least, 



AND OTHER EREORS OF SPEECH. 33 

There is a very common error in the arrange- 
ment of the words in a favourite Latin quotation, 
which generally appears in print as ^^id omne 
genus^' whereas, it should be ''''id genus omne.'' 
This error cannot possibly be ascribed to com- 
positors. 

his name was not to be appended to the article, he com- 
mitted it to the editorial hands. The following day it ap- 
peared in print, arid, as he had expected and feared, one of 
the constituents of good troops was described as their 
maUrid» 



VULaARISMS 

CHAPTER IV. 

INDELICACY. 

In the avoidance of certain proper words, and 
tlie substitution of other words for them, there 
is involved the admission of the existence of an 
indelicate thought. This practice, originating in 
the prurience of some people's imaginations, has, 
unhappily, so influenced many worthy people, 
that even they have contracted the habit of this 
avoidance, which they have the folly to consider 
an evidence of refinement. 

"A nice man," says Dean Swift, "is a man 
of nasty ideas ;" an apophthegm which conveys 
a keen satire. So far is it from being true, 
that the practice mentioned is delicate, it is the 
height of indelicacy. ; 

An Englishman, to whom an American woman 
should say, '' I have the rheumatism in one of my 
limbs," might inquire, "Which?" if he did not 
happen to know that many women in this country, 
in speaking of their sex's le^s to persons of the 



AND OTHER EERORS OF SPEECH. 35 

other sex, call them distinctively limhs, and there 
drop the subject, although they might not drop 
their skirts a hair's breadth : such is consistency 
in the matter of legs. 

At a hotel, the writer heard a ladt/ direct a 
waiter to bring her the trotter of a chicken. He 
once met another who was all ankle to the waist, 
and all waist to the shoulders. Happening to 
converse with the latter regarding the relative 
symmetry of our countrywomen in different parts 
of the United States, she, wishing to express her 
belief that New England women, of whom she 
was one, had as delicately shaped limbs — by which 
the writer means arms as well as legs — as the 
women of other sections have, stammered out 
that they had very fine — ah-ah-ah — extremities. 

It is a shame that excellent words, which are a 
part of our language, and which served our ances- 
tors for hundreds of years, should be driven out of 
familiar use by prurient imaginations. Cock and ' 
Hen are generic names, distinguishing the male 
and the female of all kinds of birds ; but The Cock 
and The Hen are the distinctive appellations of the 
barn-door fowls. Why then should we substitute 
rooster for cockf Does not the hen of the same 



36 VULGAHISMS 

species roost also ? We saj woodcoch, 'peacock^ 
weatliereoeky — althougli some persons object even 
to these, — why, then, should we not use the dis- 
tinctive name from which the compounds are 
derived ? One would suppose that a word which 
is not obsolete, or quaint, which was and is good 
enough in a translation of the Scriptures, would 
be good enough for every-daj use. Or shall we 
read, where Peter denies the Master — "the 
rooster crew?" 

The word rooster is an Americanism, which, 
the sooner we forget, the better ; not because it 
is an Americanism, but because the use of it, as 
is also the case in the other words criticised in 
this place, has an effect the very reverse of that 
alleged to be intended. 

In our translation of the Scriptures we read 
of an animal called The Ass. In the moral tales, 
entitled The Fables of iEsop, we read of the 
same animal, also called The Ass. But, in much 
modern speech and writing, the ass has become 
the donkey. 

Now, although a donkey must be either an ass 
or a mule^ neither an ass nor a mule is necessarily 
a donkey. An ass may be a wild-ass, or an un- 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 37 

broken domestic one, and so may a mule be either 
wild, or unbroken. A donkey is an ass, or a mule, 
hrohen to the saddle, or to draught. The word, 
on account of which this is avoided, is not the 
isame in derivation, spelling, or pronunciation. 
* The length to which this spurious delicacy has 
proceeded in this country would astonish many 
who have given in their adherence to some of 
these affectations. The writer has visited and re- 
sided in many parts of it, and can vouch, from 
personal observation, for what he affirms. Among 
some country-people, he once accidentally dis- 
covered, to his surprise, that the children 
had been taught to call pismires, antmires. 
On one occasion, to his knowledge, when some 
little girls from the city were spending their 
summer-vacation at a farm-house, one of them, 
happening to speak of her being afraid of a bull 
in the neighbourhood, was frowned out of coun- 
tenance by the mistress of the house, who, taking 
her aside, chid her for using the word, telling her 
that it was indecent. 

It is a suggestive fact, that wherever education 
and refinement most prevail, there is the least 
of this practice. In witnessing cases of it. there 



38 VTJLGAEISMS 

often comes into the mind of the writer the reply 
which a French teacher of his acquaintance once 
made to a female pupil, who, at recitation, hesi- 
tated to pronounce the AYord leg, where it occurred 
in an account of the wounding of Napoleon : — 
" ATi, Mademoiselle, la vraie delicatesse ne pense 
pas a de telles cJioses.'" True delicacy has no 
such ideas. 

It is a poor surgeon that, wishing to extirpate 
a blemish, scruples to use the knife boldly. With 
the originators and abettors of this false delicacy 
rest the responsibility for the need of using it 
at all! 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 



CHAPTER V. 

VUXGARISMS CONSISTINa IN THE INAPPROPRIATE 
USE OF WORDS CORRECT IN THEMSELVES. 



Although in themselves correct, there are some 
words which, when inappropriately used, mark the 
speaker as ill-educated and underbred. 

The titles gentleman and lady are most sel- 
dom on the lips of those who have the best right 
to be dignified by them. Gentlemen and ladies 
assert their right to the distinction by their de- 
meanour, not by arrogating to themselves the 
titles. 

What constitutes propriety in the use of these 
two words can be determined by discussing one 
of them, for to each is applicable all that can 
be said of the other. Let us therefore choose 
for consideration the rather more misused word, 
lady. 

By common courtesy, ladies comprise all wo- 
men who conduct themselves with propriety, and 
possess certain conventional manners. In one's 



40 VULGARISMS 

heart of hearts, however, one knows that all 
these are not ladies. Each person has some cri- 
terion hj which to distinguish those who are 
from those who are not. 

The object here is not to discuss what consti-fe 
tutes a ladj, but to define when the title which 
belongs to the character is appropriately used, 
and when misused. Granting, in any particular 
case, the right to the distinction, the title is not 
always properly employed. For instance, were 
one speaking of the admirable traits of char- 
acter possessed by a female acquaintance, it would 
be incorrect for one to say, " She is a fine lady." 
One should, in that case, say, "She is a fine wo- 
man." A fine woman is something infinitely 
superior to a fine lady. The works of Fielding 
abound with fine ladies, but they are not often fine 
"women. In the case supposed, the term fine be- 
longs to the idea of sex, not to that of station. 

Again, if one should v/ish to speak of the 
wit of a female acquaintance, it would be incorrect 
to say, " She is a witty lady." Wit, or any other 
attribute of the mind, does not belong distinct- 
ively to ladies, nor even to their sex, but to indi- 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 41 

viclual men and womea. The same observation ap- 
plies wlien education and learning are concerned. 

Were one to say of a certain person, " She is 
a well-dressed lady," the expression would imply 
that ladies may not be well-dressed; which is 
not a fact, taste in dress being a characteristic 
of a lady, its appropriateness to occasion being 
its marked excellence : whereas a vulgar woman 
always supposes that she is well-dressed when she 
is much-dressed, and, in consequence, is gene- 
rally overdressed. 

Thousands of cases might be cited, in which the 
word is misused ; as, Avhen a person speaks of a 
good lady, a modest lady, a charitable lady, an 
amiable lady, a handsome lady, a graceful lady. 
In some of them the expression is wrong because 
the epithet is involved in the character ; and in 
others it is wrong because the epithet is applied 
to individuals as belonging to the female sex, 
not as restricted to those who are ladies. 

On inquiry's being made at a house for Mrs. 

, she sometimes introduces herself thus: — 

" I am the lady." She should say either, "I am 

Mrs. ," or else, '' I am the person." One 

who uses either of these expressions might be 
4 



42 VULGARISMS 

the lady of the house ; using the firjt one, she 
could not possibly be, although she might be the 
mistress of it. 

A laclj instinctively shrinks from a direct, 
personal announcement of station. Only in rare 
cases can she be forced to make it. To an in- 
timate friend, with whom she feels safe from the 
suspicion of vulgarity, she might say, or imply, on 
an occasion when warranted by the subject, that 
she is a lady. Tlius, for example: — "The pas- 
sengers consisted chiefly of rough, noisy people, 
among whom 1, of course, could not feel comfort- 
able." Or, she tells Mrs. , positively, that 

she can have nothing to do with the proceeding 
of writing their complaints in an anonymous 

note to their pastor. Mrs. answers, "why 

not?" "Because," returns she, mortified and 

insulted at Mrs. 's supposing her capable 

of the act, "I am a lady." Here is an extreme 
case — that of a person driven in self-defence to 
make, in one word, an announcement of her 
sentiments. \ 

All expressions which involve a claim to per- 
sonal distinction should be scrupulously avoided. 
Any woman can say, when referring to the ten- 



AND OTHER ERROES OF SPEECH. 43 

derness of heart possessed by her in common with 
her sex, "I have the feelings of a woman;" he- 
cause she confesses to the possession of a charac- 
teristic accorded to the whole sex. But if she 
says, "I have the feelings of a lady^'' she singles 
herself out, by conferring on herself a title of dis- 
tinction. No woman of delicacy — lady^ can 
do that. 

A form of vulgarity in using the word lady 
is very common in advertisements: — "Wanted, 
a first-class saleslady/' — -''Wanted, a situation 
as saleslady," etc. Undoubtedly, a woman who 
sells may be a lady, but she is not one because 
she sells. She is a &d\Q&woman, the correlative 
of salesman. What should we say, if the latter 
styled himself a salesgentleman? The proper 
form for these advertisements is this : — "Wanted, 
a saleswoman, — Wanted, a situation as saleswo- 
man, — -Wanted, a situation as salesman." 

As an evidence of the loss of significance re- 
sulting from undiscriminating use of the titles 
under consideration, take the majority of ad- 
vertisements in which they appear, and do 
we not often see such as this? — "Boarding: 
Two respectable young ladies can find home 



44 VULGAHISMS 

comforts in a private family," etc. As if 
ladies coiald be other than respectable ! Even 
in a leading editorial of a newspaper remark- 
able for its general ability, accuracy, and 
good taste, there lately appeared these phrases : 
" every well-bred gentleman," — '' every well-bred 
lady." As if, in either sex, to be well-bred, 
is not to be either a gentleman or a lady ! as 
if to be a gentleman or a lady, is not to be 
well-bred ! 

The introduction of the word ladjj into adver- 
tisements sometimes leads to ludicrous readings 
of the subject-matter, as in the following instance, 
which the writer noticed a few years ago : — 
"Wanted, by a young lady with a fine breast of 
milk, a situation as wet-nurse ;" by which phrase- 
ology was suggested to every reader's mind an 
idea foreign to the advertiser's thought, and, 
probably, to the truth. 

The expressions, "my gentleman-friend," — 
"my lady-friend," are vulgarisms. The pre- 
sumption is, when a gentleman or a lady speaks 
jf any one as being his or her friend, that it must 
be a lady, if a woman, and a gentleman, if a 
man. The station is taken for granted, and, 



AND OTHEE EERORS OF SPEECH. 45 

generally, it is not necessary to specify the sex, 
"When necessary to do so, the object should be 
accomplished by . mentioning the name of the 
person, in connection with the word, friend. 
This may be done in three forms. First. My 

friend, Mr. (Mrs., Miss) . Second. A friend 

of mine, Mr. (Mrs., Miss) .• Third. Mi\ 

(Mrs., Miss) , a friend of mine. 

When it is necessary to distinguish friends as 
divisible into the sexes, the proper expressions 
to employ are, "my male friends," — " my female 
friends." 

What can be a greater vulgarity than a man's 
inquiring after the health of another's wife, 
thus: — "How is your Lady?" or than a man's 
entering his and his wife's name on a Hotel- 
Register, as Mr. So-and-so and Lady ? * 

In England, Lady is a title corresponding to 
Lord. In this country, it is not a title, except 
by courtesy. My Lord So-and-so, travelling with 
his Lady, is known to be travelling with his wife. 

* A vulgarity of the same sort is common in France. 
There, a gentleman always says, ma femme (my wife), but 
the vulgar, through affectation, often say, mon ejjoiise 
(my spouse). 



46 VULGARISMS 

An untitled man travelling with his Lady is in a 
very equivocal position. A gentleman without 
rank, if accompanied by his wife, puts his name 
on a Hotel-Register, as Mr.- • — and wife. 

It is impossible to specify every case in which 
the terms gentleman and lady should be avoided, 
and every case in which they should be employed. 
The rule which one can deduce from the prin- 
ciples discussed, is, that as regards one's own 
personality, there should be an entire avoidance 
of them in self-application, and as regards others, 
an avoidance of them, ivlien they are not required 
as part of the language of courtesy^ nor as re- 
ferring to the distinctive traits appertaining to the 
stations.^" 

* The only exceptions are in the case of youth and of 
age. It is customary, in speaking of well-grown boys 
and girls of a certain station, to call them '"young gentle- 
men" and "young ladies." It is also customary, in speak- 
ing q/old men and old women of a certain station, to call 
them " old gentlemen" and " old ladies." An additional 
epithet is frequently applied to them, as when we speak 
of "a fine old gentleman," — '"a fine old lady," — "a nice 
old gentleman," — "a nice old lady." — "a cross old gentle- 
man," — "a cross old lady." 



AND OTHER EEROES OF SPEECH. 47 

Moreover, there can be no verbal qualification 
of the terms, although there may be mental quali- 
fication of them. A gentleman is a gentleman, and 
a lady is a lady, irrespective of their position 
in the world. The elements are intrinsic. There- 
fore it is vulgar to say, "a first-class lady," — 
" very much of a lady," — or to speak in the same 
strain of a gentleman. In each sex, persons 
worthy of the titles exhibit individual difi*erences, 
being various in nature, birth, intellect, educa- 
tion, beauty, elegance, accomplishments, fortune ; 
but some of these possessions are accessory, not 
essential, to the composition of the lady and the 
gentleman. They add lustre to, but they cannot 
constitute the characters. 

The writer has dwelt at some length on this 
subject, because there is urgent need of reform 
in it. The undiscriminating use of the terms 
gentleman and lady has so prostituted them, that 
even in cases where they might with propriety 
be used, they are often shunned by the refined. 
We should take warning from the fate of gen- 
teel^ a word so much abused at one time that, 
araong refined people, it has become almost ob- 
solete. It never became so ofiensive to ears 



48 VULGARISMS 

polite as the words last mentioned, for the rea- 
son that it never received the self-application 
which is fast rendering those words obnoxious. 
It was, however, applied so indiscriminately as 
to occasion disgust. There was not only a gen- 
teel man, or a genteel woman, but there were 
genteel hands, feet, noses, smiles, coaches, hats, 
gloves, boots, shawls, cloaks, genteel any thing 
and every thing. 

It is strange that the persons who are most 
addicted to the use of the word lady^ are also 
the very ones who do not scruple to apply the 
w^ord female to every degree of w^omankind. 
Yet, the words male and female are not properly 
used as nouns^ except in speaking of the lower 
animals. To the sexes of mankind, they are 
properly applied only as adjectives. We can 
say: — the male pupils, the female pupils, the 
male singers, the female singers, the male de- 
scendants, the female descendants, and so on; 
but we cannot say of a man, "He is a handsome 
male." But, is it any better to say of a woman, 
"She is a handsome female?" We often hear, 
and read, that a church, or other building, was 
crowded y^it\\ females ', that ^^ I'aQ females of the 



AND OTHER EEROES OF SPEECH. 49 

Rev. 's congregation take mucli interest 

in the approaching Fair."* This is detestable! 
Let us speak of the whole range of beasts, birds, 
and fishes, as males and females ; but let us not 
derogate from our dignity. There are no words 
nobler than man and woman, not even the words 
gentleman and ladi/. The former and the latter 
have different spheres, and are not interchange- 
able terms. 

When describing mixed public assembly, it is 
in better taste to use the terms ladies and gentle- 
men, than to speak of males and females. But 

* The name " Female Institute " is incorrect. A sing- 
er, a descendant, and others, may be female. But, 
whether we mean to characterise an institution, or to char- 
acterize merely the building which it occupies, we cannot 
with propriety use the word female. Houses and institu- 
tions are of the neuter gender. The only possible con- 
structions that tliename " Female Institute" will bear are 
the following : — A house of the feminine gender, an insti- 
tution of the feminine gender, or a house for females — 
the last construction being the least in accordance with 
the literal reading of the words. " Women's Institute," — ■ 
" Girls' Institute," — are the best names by which to desig- 
nate Institutions for women and girls, and next to them 
come the names, "Ladies' Institute," — ''Young Ladies' 
Institute." 



50 



VULaARISMS 



it is in far better taste to say men and women ; 
especially, and from a higher motive than good 
taste, when we refer, however distantly, to divine 
worship. 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 



CHAPTER VL 

VULGARISMS CONSISTING IN THE CONTRACTION OF 
WORDS. 



The words which were discussed in the last 
chapter are legitimate words when legitimately 
used. We now come to the consideration of 
several contractions, which have not reached the 
dignity of being recognized as parts of our lan- 
guage. 

As remarked in the last chapter, the title of 
gentleman is most seldom on the lips of those who 
have the best right to the designation. When, 
however, they do have occasion to employ the 
word, they do so without contracting it. Gents 
may serve well enough for the signs of " Gentle- 
men's Furnishing Stores," or for the speech of 
hackney-coachmen, but it is inadmissible in the 
language of good society. 

From the Italian words, singular and plural, 
pantalone, pantaloni, we received through the 
French people — through whom we received the 



52 VULGARISMS 

garment also — our word pantaloons. The word 
Las been anglicized in this form ; written and 
spelled thus, it preserves the sign of its deriva- 
tion ; it is easy to pronounce ; and it is not un- 
euphonious. In fact, there can be no objection 
to it. Why, then, is it ever contracted into 
pants? One's time must be precious if one 
contracts words to save it. Pants, as well as 
gents, will do well enough for signs, and among 
the uneducated ; but, in the conversation or in 
the writing of the educated and refined, the word 
should be eschewed. Trousers, or jjantaloo^is, 
is the proper name of the garment in question. 

Kids is another vile contraction. Habit blinds 
people to the unseemliness of a term like this. 
How would it sound if one should speak of silk 
gloves as silks 

There was some excuse, on account ot the 
length of the names, for contracting into gum- 
elastics, india-rabhers, and 7nibhers, the original 
names for gum shoes— india-7^uhber sJioes, or 
gum-elastic shoes; but there is no excuse for con- 
tracting the present name gum shoes into gums. 

We derive from the French lang;uao;e our word 
chemise — pronounced shcmmceze. In French, the 



AXD OTHER ERKORS OF SPEECH. 53 

word denotes a man's shirt, as well as the under- 
garment worn by women. In this country, it is 
often pronounced by people who should know 
better — sliimmij. The word is degraded by this 
pronunciation, is as different in sound from 
the true word, as different in associations, as 
fiddle is from violin and from its associations. 
A lady invariably pronounces it sJiemmeeze. 
Rather than call it sJiimmi/, resume the use of 
the old English words, shift and smoch. 

The Yfriter will forestall the captious critic, 
by remarking that he is well aware of the word's 
not being used in public ; and will add, that it 
matters not, inasmuch as the lano-uage of the 
refined is not laid aside in private. 

That good usage does occasionally tolerate 
contractions has been admitted by the act of 
producing some of them. lYhether it is or is not 
justifiable in making exceptions is of no conse- 
quence in enabling us to arrive at a conclusion 
which shall guide our practice. The question as 
to the propriety of any given contraction is always 
one of fact as to its being authorized by good 
usage; and although, of course, there must some- 
tnnes be difference of opinion as to what, in- a 



54 VULGARISMS 

particular case, good usage dictates, tliere can 
be no final appeal, as, in the case of the con- 
struction of sentences, may be made to grammar. 
In this matter, as well as in pronunciation, the 
decision of good usage is final. It unqualifiedly 
condemns gents, pants, kids, gums, and shimmy^ 
and, as a general rule, other contractions. 



AND OTHER EREORS OF SPEECH, 



CHAPTER VII. 

VULGARISMS CONSISTING IN USING WORDS IN A 
WRONG SENSE. 



A VERY prevalent error in the use of a word 
in a wrong sense is to be fovind in the expression, 
"our mutual friend." It is to be regretted 
that Dickens has contributed to give currency 
to this phrase, by calling his last novel, ^ Our 
Mutual Friend,' without adding one word, in 
the book itself, to indicate that its title is an in- 
correct expression. The presumption is that he 
did not believe the phrase to be erroneous. Yet 
the most correct speakers and writers unite in 
condemning it, Macaulay stigmatizing it as a 
"low vulgarism." 

Primarily, the word mutual relates to persons, 
and to two persons only. The idea that it 
conveys is reciprocity of sentiment or of action. 
Two persons may have a mutual affection or a 
mutual aversion, but how can a third person 
participate in that affection, or in that aversion? 



56 VULGARISMS 

Two persons may mutually embrace, but tliej can- 
not mutually embrace some one else. Individually, 
every human being partakes of the lot of mutual 
dependence. Secondarily, the word may refer to 
many persons regarded as comprised in two divi- 
sions. The intercourse of two societies may be 
for their mutual advantage. Secondarily, and 
figuratively, the word relates to numbers of any 
things holding relations with each other. The 
arts show mutual dependence. But in none of 
these cases does the word signify possession. 
If people casting aside the idea of the sentiment 
uniting two persons supposed to be able to use 
the phrase, "our mutual friend," are reconciled 
to its signifying merely joint posses'sion of 
another friend, why may they not also adopt the 
phrases, "our mutual business," or, "our mutual 
house?" 

Our common friend, common enemy, common 
acquaintance, or w^hatever the case may be, are 
the proper expressions — meaning, the friend, 
enemy, acquaintance, common to both of us — 
our friend, enemy, acquaintance, in common."^ 

* A Lif3 xlssurance Company of the United States pub- 
hshes ' Our Mutual Friend,' a newspaper, the motto of 



i 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 57 

The word 'party is now frequently used as 
synonymous with man, and is daily growing in 
favour. The use of it in this sense is quite an- 
cient, but never became common until of late 
years. The present use of it in this sense is so 
general as to seem to originate in some partic- 
ular affection for it. It is a pet word. 

This corruption has proceeded from the word 
in its signification of joint concern in any act; 
a meaning with which it is properly used in Law, 
where it so frequently occurs, that the people, 
having become habituated to it in its technical 
sense, adopted it, and conferred on it an ad- 
ditional meaning. 

It is very natural that this should have hap- 
pened; for, if two persons were the parties to a 
marriage, or other contract, if two or more per- 
sons were parties to a suit at law, or to pro- 
ceedings of any sort requiring combination or 
opposition, each of these persons was a 'party to 
that in which he or she was concerned. Hence 
the word came to be used to designate a single 

which is, " Ignorance is the curse of God, knowledge the 
wing whereby we fly to Heaven." 
5 



58 VULGARISMS 

individual, and, not only that, but strictly, 
a man. 

But it should not be associated with the idea 
of a single person, irrespectively of that person's 
relations with another, or with other persons. 
If, with a meaning restricted to designating a 
single person irrelatively to other persons, it 
were applied not only to men, but to women, it 
would be objectionable; but, as the case stands, 
it is doubly objectionable, on the score that it is 
not philosophically applied, as for mere consis- 
tency's sake it should be, equally to men and to 
women. 

It is not uncommon to hear persons who do 
not weigh their words, say : — " I just met a party 
from New York, who came on with a party con- 
sisting of several wealthy parties.'' Here we 
have a legitimate meaning of the word party — 
expressive of social assembly — used in connec- 
tion with the word with its illegitimate meaning ; 
and, as we constantly have occasion to speak of 
one man as well as of men in company with each 
other, the use of the same word for both ideas is 
creative of confusion in the mind. Why is it not 
better to say, "I met a man," or, ''I met a gen- 



A^D OTHER EERORS OF SPEECH. 59 

tleman," or, ''I met a person;" instead of saying, 
^' I met a party ?" Is the word ^arty a particu- 
larly sweet morsel to roll around the tongue ? 

Lest the writer be suspected of having set up 
a man of straw, for the greater facility with 
which it could be toppled over, he quotes, sup- 
pressing names, the following account of a late 
distressing railroad accident, rendered, by the 
mode of narration, almost ludicrous : — 

" Several other parties were 

quite badly, though not dangerously, injured by 
the shock which resulted from the collision. 

" The scene at the place of the accident was 
most heart-rending. We learn that the screams 
of the unfortunate parties in the sleeping-car, 
previous to their death, were beyond all descrip- 
tion. However, nothing could save them ; the 
flames spread on every hand, and to move was as 
certain death as to remain in the berths ; but a 
few moments only sufficed to end the terrible 
agonies of the unfortunate parties ; and save 

with respect to the unknown female from , 

little elae is left than the ashes of the doomed 
ones 



60 VULGARISMS 

" We learn that one of the sisters reached 

the door of the car, and broke the window, but 
was unable to obtain an egress. Her situation 
was observed bj other 'parties, and an axe was 
procured from the train, and an effort made to 
relieve her ; but while the party was attempting to 
batter down the door of the car, a sudden burst 
of flames struck her, and she fell dead." .... 

Individual is another word frequently used in 
a wrong sense, or rather, restricted to meaning 
only a man ; whereas it is applicable as well to 
every human being, although it is seldom used 
in reference to persons not adults. It may be 
applied to beasts; as, for instance, a naturalist 
may speak of "an individual of any species of 
the brute creation." It may be applied even to 
the lowest and the most minute forms of animal 
life. 

The use of the word in the restricted sense 
mentioned is a vulgarism. Yet this use of it is 
quite common in the United States, and Dean 
Alford says, is quite common in England. 

As an adjective, the word sometimes has duty to 
do which no other word can perform. If, for in- 
stance, a traveller, looking from a mountain 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 61 

towards a distant city, could see each of the 
houses, he could not otherwise communicate the 
fact so well as bv saying that he could " dis- 
tinguish the individual houses." This use of 
the word as an adjective, will give an idea of 
its projDer application as a noun, as which it 
means each and every living creature, although 
it is applied especially to men and women. 



VULGARISMS 



CHAPTER YIII. 

VULGARISMS CONSISTING IN THE MISPRONUNCIA- 
TION OF ANGLICIZED WORDS. 



It has previously been remarked that a for- 
eign word is not to be tolerated when an equiva- 
lent can be found in one's own language. It 
may be added that, when a foreign word is intro- 
duced into any language, it should be received 
and retained with its original spelling and pro- 
nunciation as much as possible unimpaired. 

This process, which in our language is termed 
anglicizing, was effected in the case of the 
following words, all originally in correct and 
daily use, but now fast settling into apparently 
irremediable corruption. 

The French word amateur — correctly pro- 
nounced ammatur — is often called ammaclioor. 
It is as easy to say ammatur as it is to say am- 
maclioor, and the corruption in the pronunciation 
probably originated in people's seeing the word's 
final syllable spelled teur, and presuming that it 



AND OTHER ERROES OF SPEECH. 63 

was to be prouounced as we, in English, pro- 
nounce ture^ whereas teur^ in French, is always 
pronounced tur."^ 

The French word connoisseur — old French, 
modern French, eonnaisseur — was anglicized with 
that form when it was so spelled in France. Its 
last syllable is pronounced sur, and the whole 
word, Jconnessur — not honnayshoor and Iconnay- 
seer, as it is frequently mispronounced. 

The French word houqiiet has been adopted 
by us, with its spelling and its pronunciation un- 
changed ; yet it is frequently printed hoquet, 
and pronounced 5(?-kay. The true pronunciation 
is hoo-Jcay, which is just as easy to say as 
ho-'ko.j. Where is to be found the authority for 
changing the spelling and the pronunciation of 
this word ? Both Webster and Worcester write 
it bouquet, and pronounce it hoo-Jcay; and the 
English lexicographers do likewise. f 

The French words Deux Temps, although they ' 
have not yet found their way into our diction- 

* Even tlie Englisli syllable iure does not give the 
sound of choor. 

f WebsCfer and Worcester give also the pronunciation 
5oo-kay. That given in the text is the correct one. In 



64 VTJLGAEISMS 

aries, may, on account of the popularity of the 
waltz well known by that name, be considered 
anglicized. They are pronounced Durh Tongh, 
and mispronounced Dew Ton. 

The French word d^hut — correctly pro- 
nounced day-hu — is often called diQ-hut. An 
actor, or an actress, is sometimes said to have 
deSi^rted. The latter, however, is not the usual 
error, but the coining of a word. In France, an 
actor, or an actress, can make his or her debut 
(day-bu), or can dehut (day-bu); because the 
French have a verb, dehuter (day-bu-tay), mean- 
ing to make one's first appearance on the stage, 
or elsewhere in public. 

The French word etagey^e^ meaning the shelves 
for nicknacks, so frequently seen in parlours, is 
correctly pronounced a-tahj-ayre, and incor- 
rectly pronounced a-tahjer. 

The French word ruohe, correctly pro- 
nounced rewshy means heehivey from which — 

French, there is no accent in the sense with which we 
speak of accent, and as the second syllable of the word 
bouquet^ as represented by hay, can be pronounced either 
long or short, the effect of laying stress on th§ first sylla- 
ble, which is always long, is to make the word sound 
thus — Z)oo-keh. 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 65 

probably on account of the resemblance between 
the plaits of blondlace and the cells of the honey- 
comb — is named the delicate quilling used by 
women, sometimes inserted on the inside edge of 
the bonnet, sometimes serving as an ornamental 
covering for the throat, and sometimes as a trim- 
ming for ball-dresses. This word is incorrectly 
called rouge, the pronunciation and the use of 
which are very well known. 

The French word savant is, in the plural, 
savans — not savants, as we frequently see it 
printed. The word, in the singular number, is 
correctly pronounced savvonh ; in the plural-, 
savvonlis. 

La Fayette — anglicized Lafayette — is cor- 
rectly pronounced Laf-fi-yet, and often mispro- 
nounced Laffyet, sometimes Layfyet, These 
vulgar pronunciations have been so often criti- 
cized, they should be much less common than 
they are. The most devoted foreign friend of 
Washington, and of the United States, deserves 
better at our hands than to be known as Laffyet, 
or Layfyet. 

The Italian word^mwo is correctly pronounced 
peanno — not pi-anno, nor pianner. The third 



bb VULGARISMS 

is tlie lowest-known pronunciation ; the second, 
althougli onlj a grade above it, is entitled to the 
mention of that distinction. 

From the Latin word nuhes, signifying a 
cloud, we take the name of The Nuhe,'^'' or The 
Cloud, the hood of zephyr worsted, often worn 
by women for a head-dress in the streets at 
night. The name is very expressive, owing to 
the light, fleecy appearance of the hood. When, 
within a few years, this head-dress came into 
fashion — for zephyr worsteds, it would seem, 
are a modern invention — it was called The 
Nube. As soon, however, as the wearing of it 
became so general that instead of being as for- 
merly knit, it was generally woven by manufact- 
urers, and sold in large numbers, its name was 
corrupted into JSfuhia, The pasteboard boxes 
in which it was sent to market were always 
marked. Nubias. This labelling, and the result- 
ing mispronunciation of the word by most sales- ^ 
women who disposed of the article, were by 
many people regarded as high authority for the 
spelling and the pronunciation of the word, and, 
doubtless, have been the chief agencies in its cor- 
ruption. 

* Pronounce i nu^he. 



jl^b other errors of speech. 67 

For the sake of precision, those of the pre- 
ceding words which in the originals have accents 
have been so marked. But, as those words have 
been anglicized, they do not ordinarily require 
either accents or italicizing. They are a part 
of our language. 

When it is said of a word, that it has been 
adopted from another language, with its spelling 
and its pronunciation unchanged, — as was re- 
marked of the word bouquet^ — the statement is 
not strictly true with regard to its pronunciation. 
There is, belonging to every language, an ac- 
cent, a complexional character which pervades 
the whole of it ; and this no foreigner can 
acquire, although some persons do fondly imagine 
that they have succeeded in the endeavour. 



VULGARISMS 

CHAPTER IX. 

GRAMMATICAL ERRORS.* 



This chapter must begin with a. defence of 
its title. 

The correctness of the expression "gram- 
matical errors" has been disputed. "How," it 
has been asked, " can an error be grammatical?" 
How, it may be replied, can we with propriety 
say, "grammatically incorrect?" Yet we can 
do BO. 

No one will question the propriety of saying, 
"grammatically correct." Yet the expression 
is the acknowledgment of the existence of 
things "grammatically mcorrect." Likewise, 
the phrase "grammatical correctness" implies 
the existence of "grammatical mcorrectness." 
If, then, a sentence is "grammatically incorrect," 
or, what is the same thing, has "grammatical 
incorrectness," it includes a grammatical error. 
"Grammatically incorrect," signifies incorrect 

* Vulgarisms and other errors. 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 69 

with relation to the rules of grammar, "Gram- 
matical errors," signifies errors ivith relation to 
the rules of grammar. 

The J who ridicule the phrase " grammatical 
errors/* and substitute the phrase " errors in 
'grammar," make an egregious mistake. Can 
there, it may be asked with some show of reason, 
be an error in grammar ? Why, grammar is a 
science founded in our nature, referable to our 
ideas of time, relation, method; imperfect, 
doubtless, as to the system by which it is repre- 
sented ; but surely we cannot speak of error in 
that which is error's criterion ! All this is hy- 
percritical, but hyper criticism must be met with 
its own weapons. 

Of the two expressions, " a grammatical 
error," and "an error in grammar," the former 
is preferable. If one's judgment can accept 
neither, one must relinquish the belief in the 
possibility of tersely expressing the idea of an 
offence against grammatical rules. Indeed, it 
would be difficult to express the idea even by 
circumlocution. Should some one say, " This 
sentence is, according to the rules of grammar, 
incorrect." "What!" the hypercritic may ex- 



70 VULGARISMS 

claim, "incorrect! and according to the rules 
of grammar !" " This sentence, then," the cor- 
rected person would reply, " contains an error 
in grammar." "Nonsense!" the hjpercritic may 
shout, " grammar is a science ; you may be 
wrong in its interpretation, but principles are 
immutable !" 

After this, it need scarcely be added that, 
grammatically, no one can make a mistake, that 
there can be no grammatical mistake, that there 
can be no bad grammar, and, consequently, no 
bad English: a very pleasant conclusion which 
would save us a great amount of trouble if it did 
not lack the insignificant quality of being true. 

A verb used as if governing the nominative 
case of a personal pronoun. 

"Let's you and I go." 

One person says to another, or to others, " Let 
us go ;" never, "let we go." The very same mis- 
take, however, is often concealed from him when 
he resolves us into its component ideas, — i/ou and 
/, — and says, "Let's you and I go." Yet the 
word I has, as he very well knows, another form 
— me. This form — the objective case, the same 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 71 

case in which us a^id you are — must be used, 
and he should say, "Let you and 7ne go;" for 
let 's, also, is incorrect, being the contraction of 
* let us, and therefore a repetition of you and me, 
thus — "Let us you and me go," which is absurd. 

A preposition used as if governing the nom- 
inative case of personal pronouns. (No. 1.) 
"Between jou and I," etc. 

An error, even more common than the pre- 
ceding one, occurs in the expressions, "Between 
you and I," — " Between you and he (or she)," — 
"Between you and they." Here, /, he, s7ie, 
they, in the nominative case, should be in the 
objective case — me, him, her, them. The ex- 
pressions are therefore correct thus : — " Be- 
tween you and me," — "Between you and him 
(or her), " — " Between you and them." 

A preposition used as if governing the nom- 
inative case of personal pronouns. (No. 2.) 
'' From he who," etc- 

The phrase "from he v,^ho" is sometimes spoken, 
but oftener written, owing to the fact that the 
sentences in which it occurs are seldom used 



72 VULGARISMS 

in conversation; as, "We expect most from lie 
wlio has had most advantages." The person who 
speaks or writes such a sentence imagines that 
the relative pronoun wlw cannot refer to Mm^ O! 
her (me, us, them), but must always refer to he, 
or she (I, we, they), or to the nouns which these 
words may represent. 

We cannot say from I, from he, from she, 
from tve, from the^/. The two following sentences 
exhibit the proper combinations : — " We expect 
most from him, or her (them) who has (have) 
had most advantages." " Expect nothing from 
me (us) who am (are) too poor to bestow." 

Remember that the word that is sometimes a 
mere substitute for who or which, and then ex- 
amine the following sentences : — "Visiting the 
iniquity of the fathers upon the children, unto 
the third and fourth generation of them that hate 
me : And shewing mercy unto thousands to 
them that love me, and keep my commandments." 

A few weeks ago the writer met with this 
sentence in print : — " Ought we to esteem the 
man who faces danger, or he who deceives ? Es- 
teem he ! The last clause should be — "or him 
who deceives." 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 73 

Personal pronouns used in the objective case, 
instead of in the nominative case. 
" It is me/' etc. 

The expressions, "It is (was) me," — "It is 
(was) him," — "It is (was) her,"— "It is (was) 
them," — are all incorrect. The verb To Be, of 
which is and tvas are parts, takes the same case 
after it as before it. The word it is nominative 
to is (was) -; and me, Mm, her, them, must there- 
fore be in the nominative case, respectively — I, 
he, she, they. 

"It is (was) I," — "It is (was) he," — "It is (was) 
she," — "It is (was) they," are correct expressions. 

We sometimes hear even the gross error of 
two words in the objective case, used as nomina- 
tives to a verb; as, " Him and me went." ISTo 
one ever says, " Us went," yet, " Him and me 
went," is the same mistake ; as him and me^ 
are equivalent to us — all three being in the 
objective case, instead of in the nominative case 
— he, I, we. The sentence should be, " He and 
I went." 

Personal pronouns used in the objective case, 

instead of in the possessive case. 
G 



74 VULGARISMS 

" Him staying," etc. 

Me, Mm, and them, the objective cases of the 
personal pronouns I, he, and the^/, are often 
incorrectly used for the possessive cases, tut/, his, 
and thei?^; as, ''I do not like him staying out so 
late at night." The sentence should be, "I do 
not like his staying out so late at night." One 
sentence expresses an idea entirely different 
from that expressed by the other. The former 
states that the person referred to is not liked 
when staying out late at night, and implies that 
he is liked when not staying out late at night. 
But the liking or the disliking the person cannot 
depend on his staying out at night, and that is 
not the idea intended to be expressed. What 
the speaker dislikes is not the person when stay- 
ing out late at night, but the person's staying out 
late at night — the act. 

Whether we should use the word him, or them, 
or the word his, or their, depends upon what 
idea is intended to be conveyed. " I saw him 
skating," means that I saw him, and he was 
skating. "I saw his skating," means that I 
saw the quality of his skating. " We heard 
them singing," means that we heard them en- 



AND OTHER ERRORS OE SPEECH. 75 

ga.ge(J in tlie act of singing. " We Heard their 
singing," means that our attention was particu- 
larly attracted to the singing. " I did not notice 
them passing," means that, as they passed, I 
took no notice of them. " I did not notice their 
passing," means that their passing escaped my 
observation. 

Her has not been introduced into the preced- 
ing examples, because her is the possessive case 
as well as the objective case of she: that is to 
say, more precisely, the possessive case and the 
objective case have, in this instance, the same 
form. 

A personal pronoun used instead of one of the 
demonstrative pronouns. 

'' Them things/' etc. 

The personal pronoun them is frequently used 
for the demonstrative pronouns these, those ; as, 
"them things," — "them people," — "them ap- 
ples," etc. One might as well say, "him car- 
riage," — "him store," — "him nose," — "me 
eye," — "me paper," — "me pen." 

The demonstrative pronouns distinguish be- 
tween two sets of things, mental, moral, or 



76 VULGARISMS 

physical — these relating to the more near, those 
to the more remote. They is a personal pro- 
noun, and can be prefixed to nouns only when it 
is in the possessive case — their; as, their things, 
their apples, etc. We should say, these things, 
those things, these people, those people, these 
apples, those apples, etc. 

A relative as an interrogative pronoun, used 
in the nominative case, instead of in the object- 
ive case. 

Who used for lohom. 

" Who did you see ?" The error in this sen- 
tence will readily be perceived by putting it into 
another form; thus, "Who saw you?" — the 
very reverse of what is meant to be said. 

Put it into another form, by reversing the last, 
and it is, "You saw who ?" which, if correct, so 
is, "You saw he?" — "You saw she?'' etc. But 
it is not correct. It should be, " Whom did you 
see?" or, " Whom saw you?" or, "You saw 
ivhomT' Turn it as you please, you cannot 
now change the meaning of the sentence. 

A relative pronoun used in the objective case, 
instead of in the nominative case. 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 77 

Whom used for who. 

As in the expression, "Who did you see?" 
who is incorrectly used for wTiom^ so, in the fol- 
lowing one, tuliom is incorrectly used for wlio. 

From a newspaper — such expressions are 
common in print and in conversation— the follow- 
ing clause is taken : — " For the benefit of those 
whom she thought were his friends." The error 
in it can be at once rendered apparent by 
enclosing in brackets two words which are par- 
enthetical. It then reads: — "For the benefit 
of those whom [she thought] were his friends." 
Wliom were his friends! The wording should 
be, "wlio she thought were his friends." 

Of all the errors heretofore noticed, this is the 
one which most frequently escapes detection, 
because parenthetical words conceal it. 

A pronoun in the plural number used as if agree- 
ing with an antecedent in the singular number. 
"A person — ^if— they." 

It is incorrect to say, " A person must be 
very short-sighted if they cannot recognize a 
friend twenty feet off." Here we have, in the 
plural, they, referring to a pe7'son. The word one 



78 VULGARISMS 

must be substituted for both a person and for 
they ; thus, '' One must be very short sighted 
if one cannot recognize a friend twenty feet off."* 

A verb in the singular number used as if agree- 
ing with a nominative in the plural number. 
''It is one of tlie subjects that is," etc. 

'^It is one of the subjects that zs," etc. " In 
one of the houses that has,'' etc. In sentences 
like these, where the word orie is used, followed by 
several words, among the last of which are a noun 
in the nominative plural, and its relative pronoun, 
nominative to a verb immediately succeeding, it is 
quite common to hear the verb put in the singular 
number. In the first example given above, that 
relates to subjects, which is plural, and therefore 
requires are: — "It is one of the subjects that 
are,'' etc. In the second example, that relates to 

* Often we cannot without affectation avoid using the 
word he as relating to a 'person. It is probable that the 
perception of the incongruity resulting from applying a 
word indicative of sex to a,n antecedent not specifying it, 
is what has led to the use of the word tliey as a substitute. 
A persor.al pronoun which should be non-committal on the 
question of sex would be a great convenience. 



AND OTHER EERORS OF SPEECH. 79 

houses, which, being plural, requires have : — " In 
one of the houses that have,'' etc. 

The examples cited are not at all like the fol- 
lowing: — " One of the most important things to 
be done is,'' etc. In this case, the whole of the 
preceding clause is regarded as conveying one 
comprehensive idea, which, represented by the 
singular number, forms the nominative to the 
verb is. In the sentences above, the pronoun 
that, in both instances, relates to the word 
immediately preceding it, and takes its plural 
character from that word. 

Violation of good usage with regard to ^ou 
and were. 

^' You was." 

^'You was' ' is frequently heard in New England, 
and, apparently, is gaining ground elsewhere. 

Its introduction originated in the reasoning, 
that, whereas i/ou is employed in the singular 
number, as well as in the plural, when so em- 
ployed it should not be applied to a verb in the 
plural. E'ow we cannot legislate in this way 
about language. You is employed for both the 
singular number and the plural number, and 



80 VULGARISMS 

good usage says that in botli it shall have the 
verb in the plural form — ivere. 

It is by no means anomalous for a verb in the 
* plural number to be united with a noun or a 
pronoun in the singular number. We say, and 
correctly say: — "If the gardener were to do the 
transplanting now," — "If the letter were writ- 
ten," — "If it were to rain," — "If I were you," 
— "If I were going," — "If he were going." 
Here are nouns and pronouns, in the singular 
number, nominatives to a verb in the plural num- 
ber : a mode reserved for the expression of a cer- 
tain idea — contingency. To be consistent with 
you was, its advocates would not only have to 
abolish this subjunctive form of the verb, but also 
to say, in the verb To Have^ "You has,'' in the 
verb To Bo, "You does.'" No one is willing to 
go quite so far as that, except perhaps the 
negro-minstrels, who, in one of their burlesques, 
say, "You am n't;" it being a matter of indif- 
ference to them what they say, so that it is 
laughable. 



I 



AND OTHER ERR0T13 OF SPEECH. 

CHAPTER X. 

GRA^IMATICAL ERRORS — CONTINUED.* 



" I have saw," etc. 

Many persons -who do not saj "I done/' and 
"I s&en,'' do say, "I Jiave saw,'' 

This may be evidence of the truth of the 
hackneyed line from Pope — a little learning 
is a dangerous thing. Seeing, being a con- 
scious act more continuous than any other that 
human beings perform, and the recounting of 
what has been seen forming the staple of most 
conversation, it happens that in a community 
where general education is far above saying 1 
seen, numbers of persons, having been corrected 
in it, fall headlong into the error of " I have 
saw." 

The same mistake is apparent in the following 

item from a late paper: " and family have 

arrived in Washington, and tooh (taken) up their 
quarters for the winter," etc. 

* Vulgarisms. — Confusion of tenses. 



82 VULGARISMS 

^'Have ivejit,'" as well as false collocation in 
other verbs, often escapes notice, owing to the 
circumstance that one part of the verb is in 
one clause of a sentence, and one part of it far 
reraoved in the other, or in another, if there 
are more than two clauses ; as, ^' I have walked 
four or five miles, and, although much fatigued, 
went to a dozen places." The same persons 
who could say this, without perceiving the error, 
would see and use the relation between have and 
been in the following similarly constructed, but 
correct sentence : — " I have walked four or five 
miles, and, although much fatigued, been enjoy- 
ing myself." If this is right, and it ilj right, 
the preceding sentence should be, *'I have 
walked four or five miles, and, although much 
fatigued, gone to a dozen places." 

In a late paper this passage occurs : — 
^' Hold a mirror so that Planet Jupiter may be 
reflected in it, when two of the satellites may be' 
seen with the naked eye. So says a correspon- 
dent. We have tried it, and satv (seen) satellites 
of Jupiter," etc. In a late issue of an English 
magazine of note may be found the same erro- 
neous construction, with the verb To Come. ^'Gen- 



AND OTHER EEEORS OP SPEECH. 83 

eral Hawley had, by the aid of our Higlilanders, 
heat down two little stone walls, and came (come) 
in upon the right flank of their second line." 

Saw is not preceded by an auxiliary verb. 
Seen must be preceded by some part either of 
the auxiliary verb To Mave^ or of the auxiliary 
verb To Be; as, I have seen, — He has seen, — 
She had seen, — We shall have seen, — It is seen, 
— It was seen, — We were seen, — They had been 
seen, — It should have been seen, — etc. 

Bid is not preceded by an auxiliary verb. 
Bone must be preceded by some part either of 
To Have, or of To Be ; as, I have done,— He 
has done, — They had done, — They will have 
done, — It may be done, — It is done, — -It shall 
be done, — It was done, etc. 

''I done," — ''I seen," — "I have saw," — "I 
have went," — should be, "I did,'' — "I %aiv^' — 
"I have seew," — "I have gone'' 
I see for I saw. 

Persons sometimes say, "I see him yesterday," 
instead of, "I saw him yesterday." The words 
of the first example represent an impossible 
association of ideas. What happened yesterday, 



84 VULGARISMS 

and what happens to-day, cannot be thus con- 
jomed. To see is present, yesterday is past. 
One might as well say, "I see him to-morrow," 
instead of saying, "I shall see him to-morrow," 
as say, "I see him yesterday." The error is 
precisely the same, although in the one case 
mention is made of yesterday^ and in the other, 
of to-morroio. 

There are, however, certain cases, Tvhere the 
ideas of frequent repetition, of constant presence, 
or of eminent existence, are involved, where the 
expression / see can be employed in speaking of 
what is temporarily past; as, "I see him about 
the city," — "I see by the papers," — "I see by 
Hume's History, that he says,'' etc. 

Of a distinguished author, we always say, " He 
tvrites,'" — "He says.'' Of such a one, we sup- 
pose that his works are animate with the spirit 
which he breathed into them, and that, through 
them, he still speaks. We may even say of the 

opinion of an ordinary person, " Mr. says ;" 

because the view reported is supposed to be based 
on a fixed opinion, and always to find utterance 
in the same expression. 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 85 

Come for came. 

One of tliG most common mistakes is the use of 
eome for came; as, ^'I come to town this morning," 
— " He co77ie to my store." Come is present, came 
is past. The sentences should be, ''I came to 
town this morning," — " He came to my store." 
Has hegan for Jias begun. 

Has hegan for has begun is frequently said ; 
and also begun for began; as, "He lias began 
to study German," — "He begun to get noisy." 

Began is the imperfect tense of the verb To 
Begin^ begun is its perfect participle. The sen- 
tences should be, "He has begun to study Ger- 
man," — " He began to get noisy." 

Were drank for loere drunk. 

A very common error is, "The following 
toasts were drank.'' The sentence should be: — 
"The following toasts were drunJc.'" 
Plead for Pleaded. 

Plead, mispronounced j^led, is frequently used 
for jyleaded; as, ^' He plead (pled) guilty to the 
indictment." The sentence should be, "He 
pleaded guilty to the indictment." 

To Plead is a regular verb. The present is 
plead (pronounced pleed), imperfect tense, 



86 VULGARISMS 

pleaded (pronounced pleeded), perfect participle, 
pleaded (pronounced pleeded). 

" Had ought to," and '' Had n't ought to." 

Were it not that tlie writer is informed, on 
good authority, that the New Englandisms, Had 
ought to and Had nH ought to are making pro- 
gress among, us, he would not include them in 
his list of popular errors, from which were to be 
excluded those errors that are confined to one 
part of the country. 

Ought has only one m^GGiion—oughtest, which 
is seldom used, because it requires to be pre- 
ceded by thou, which, at present, is never em- 
ployed, except in the solemn style of writing. 

The idea conveyed by the word ought is posi- 
tive in its nature. We may with propriety say, 
^'He ought to do so and so;" or, "He ought 
to have done so and so." The obligation implied 
/ is specifib : it admits of no qualification. If a 
man ought to do so and so, he is under the obli- 
gation of doing it; if he ought to have done 
so and so, he ivas under the obligation of doing 
it. He cannot with propriety say, ''I had 
ought to do it," — " I had ought to have gone 
out," — "I hadn't ought to do it," — "I hadn't 
ought to have gone out," etc. 



I 



AND OTHEPt ERROllS OF SPEECH. 

CHAPTER XI. 

MINOR GRAMMATICAL ERRORS. 



"I wanted very mucli to have gone," etc. 

The next popular error to be treated of is not 
confined to the illiterate, but is often found even 
in the writings of good authors. It is the use 
of two verbs in the past time, when only one 
should be in that time. Lindley Murray says, 
" Expected to have found him, is irreconcilable 

alike to grammar and to sense 

Every person would perceive an error in this ex- 
pression: — ' It is long since I commanded him 
to have done it.' Yet 'expected to have founds' 
is no better. It is as clear that the finding must 
be posterior to the expectation, as that the 
obedience must be posterior to the command,"* 

There are sentences, of course, in which the 
use of the perfect infinitive is not only proper, 

* These remarks are taken by Murray from very nearly 
the exact words of Dr. Campbell, whom, with Dr. I owtb, 
he cites in support of his position. 



88 VULGAEISMS 

but necessary ; as in the following one given by 
Murray: — "It would ever afterwards have been 
a source of pleasure to have found him wise 
and virtuous." But there are thousands of^ 
cases in which the perfect infinitive is employed, 
where the present infinitive should be sub- 
stituted. 

For instance, you will hear persons say, " I 
wanted very much to have gone," — or, " Hezt^as 
very glad to have been there." If these sen- 
tences are meant to express the idea that one 
had wished something disagreeable to be over, 
they are correct ; but if they are meant to ex- 
press the idea that the actions spoken of are 
agreeable to the persons, they do not express it, 
but, on the contrary, imply the very reverse. 
Yet it is ih.Q latter idea which they are generally 
intended to express. 

Let us analyze them. ^' I wanted very much 
to have gonej" — " He was very glad to have been 
there," In the first example, what I wanted 
was not to have gone, but to go^ because I had 
not gone. In the second example, he was not 
very glad to have been there, but to be there, 
because he was there. In such cases, the first 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 89 

verb is sufficient to fix the time as past, and 
however long past, the associated verb must be 
'present; thus, ''I ivanted nqyj mMoh to go^'' — 
'^ He was very glad to he there." 

The expression, ^'Ifeelyerj glad to have been 
there," or, " He is very glad to have been there," 
conveys ideas very different from those conveyed 
by the sentences which have been condemned. 
In these, the time is established with relation to 
the present^ and must be past. In those, the 
time is established with relation to the past, 
and must be present. 

Repetition of that. 

In a late paper the following sentence occurs : 
"It does not follow that, because there are no 
national banks of issue at the South, that there 
is necessarily an insufficiency of currency there. "^ 

In this sentence, there is an unnecessary repe- 
tition of the word that. It should read thus : — 
"• It does not follow that, because there are no 
national banks of issue at the South, there is 
necessarily an insufficiency of currency there;" 
or, "It does not follow, because there are no 
national banks of issue at the South, that there 
is necessarily an insufficiency of currency there." 



90 VULGABISMS 

Sometimes the word that is improperly omitted. 
In the same paper occurs this expression: — 
" Such, at least, is the reasoning of the ladies, 
'and we suppose they are right." The proper 
wording is, "we suppose that they are right." 
In conversation, however, omission of the word 
that^ if not too frequently indulged in, is not 
only correct, but preferable. Especially to fa- 
miliar conversation, which aims less at precision 
than at ease, many things are permitted that 
would be intolerable in writing. 

The manifest misuse of the word that, has no 
doubt led many persons to omit it where, other- 
wise, they would have employed it. Admirable 
practice with respect to its use, as well as with 
respect to English generally, is to be fcund in 
Macaulay's writings, which are models of con- 
ciseness and perspicuity in style. 

The postscript to the 80th number of the 
(Spectator, headed " The just Remonstrance of af- 
fronted That," and referring to the word that, not 
as a conjunction, as in the above-cited examples, 
but as supplying the places of the pronouns who 
and which, concludes thus: — "I am not against 
reforming the corruptions of speech you mention, 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 91 

and own there are proper seasons for the intro- 
duction of other words besides That ; but I scorn 
as much to supply the place of a Who or a Which 
I at every turn, as they are unequal always to fill 
mine; and I expect good language and civil 
treatment, and hope to receive it for the future : 
That, That I shall only add is, That I am, 

"Yours, "That." 



VULGARISMS 

CHAPTER XII. 

CONFOUNDING OF SHALL AITD WILL, 



It is not within the scope of this work to 
treat of all the shades of meaning that can be 
expressed by the combination of the words shall 
and will with the pronouns only, and with the 
pronouns and the verbs. A few examples of 
the ordinary mistakes in the use of the words 
when used in the first person must suffice. 

Sliajl, in the first person, predicts. Will, in 
the first person, implies volition, certainty, power 
to perform.* 

* That the use of shall and will, in the first person, as 
difFering from their use in the other persons, is not founded 
on a purely arbitrary distinction, will be clear to the 
reader from the following considerations : 

The first person singular is always the speaJcer, Sut not 
always the agent. When the first person singular is not only 
the speaker, but the agent also, he can, in that double ca- 
pacity, not only predict, but he can promise. He can say 
either, ''I shall,'''' or "I ttu7?." But from the moment when he 
ceases to be the agent, the power of loilling departs from 



I 



AND OTHER ERRORS OP SPEECH. 93 

When shall is used in the first person, it re- 
lates to what the us^r believes will come to pass, 
but what he does not assert his power to control ; 
as, "I shall be there to-morrow," — "I shall buy 
it," — " I shall find him prompt," — " I shall soon 
- be thirty years of age." 

Will, in the first person, asserts what, although 
it may prove to be out of the user's power 
to accomplish, is promised on the presumption 
that the power exists. One cannot, however, 
promise the accomplishment of what depends on 

him and resides in anotlier person, or in other persons, 
and he is constrained to say, thou wilt, he will, ye or you 
will, they will: except in one case, where he possesses 
power over another or others, and then he can say, thou 
SHALT, he SHALL, ye or you shall, they shall. To eon- 
dense : So long as the speaker, either as the agent or as 
the master of another, possesses power to control, he can 
say, I icill, you shall. When he is neither the agent, nor 
the master of another agent, he must say, you ivill. 

It only remains to add that, when used with shaU and 
ivill, the first person plural we is subject to the same rule 
as that controlling the first person singular I; because, 
although the word «t?e involves the idea of the existence 
and action of at least two free agents, their action is con- 
certed, and by means of the inclusive term loe, can be 
expressed even by one of the number. 



94 VULGARISMS 

another free agent, or of what, by its nature, is 
immutable. Therefore, reverting to the above 
examples, although one can say, " I ivill be there 
to-morrow," — ^'Iwill buy it," one cannot say, 
*'I ivill find him prompt," — ''I will soon be 
thirty years of age." It should be evident that' 
the ascertaining of another to be what he is 
thought or hoped to be, is out of any one's 
power, and also, that controlling periodicity is 
equally out of any one's power. 

Whatever idea concerns one's beliefs, hopes, 
fears, pains, likes, and dislikes, cannot be ex- 
pressed in conjunction with the words I will. To 
demonstrate this, let us examine the three follow- 
ing sentences: — 1. I think that I will go, 2. 
I hope that I will be there. 3. I fear that I will 
drop it. 

1. If one will go, he intends to go, and his 
going cannot be doubtful to his own mind, as the 
word think implies. If he is in doubt, as the 
word thinh implies, he cannot say, I will go, 
which indicates the determination to go. The 
first sentence, therefore, should be, "I think that 
I sliall go." 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 95 

2. If one will be at a place, there is no use of 
his hoping that he shall be there, for he knows 
that he intends to be there, as he knows what is 
passing in his own mind. If he merely hopes to 
be there, which implies doubt, how can he saj^ 
that he will be there? The second sentence, 
therefore, should be, "I hope ih.d^i Ishcdl be 
there." 

3. If one will drop a thing, how can he fear 
dropping it. If he fears dropping it, how can 
he say that he ivill drop it ? The third sentence, 
therefore, should be, " I fear that I shall drop it." 

The two ideas in each of the sentences, as first 
given, are incompatible with each other. 

If it seems rational that, in the case of what 
relates to beliefs, hopes, and fears, to which the 
three preceding examples respectively belong, we 
cannot properly use the expression Iiuill^ equally 
rational must it seem, that in the case of pains, 
likes, and dislikes, the other three circumstances 
enumerated, the expression is not applicable. 
How can one say, ^'I will have a headache," — 
"I will like the performance," — " I will dislike 
the city ?" Of tnese and such subjects, one may 
prophetically say, I shall^ but not I will. 



96 VULGARISMS 

Except indirectly, tlie joo^er to control tlio result 
lies not in the speaker. 

Shall, is very seldom used for will. Scarcely 
any one would say, in answer to tlie question, 
''Will you meet me at twelve o'clock to-morrow?" 
— "I sJialV The question calls for a promise 
by way of answer, not for a prophecy. It is 
will, as has been shown, that is frequently used for 
shall. The writer has in his possession a news- 
paper article, in which will for shall is used 
four times in two consecutive paragraphs, as 
follows: — "We will possess," — "We will find," 
—"We will have,"— "We will have" (No.2) ;- 
the word will being used in the sense of predic- 
ting, not of possessing power to control, and there- 
fore incorrectly used instead of shall. 

Confounding of sJiould and would. 

Used in the first person, as futures, in combi- 
nation with other verbs, should and would are 
analogous to shall and will — should correspond- 
ing to shall, and luould to will: should simply 
predicting, would asserting power to perform.* 

* SJioidd is often used in a sense which has been des- 
cribed as defining the requirement of custom, as contra- 
distinguished from the obligation of duti/, indicated by the 



I 



AND OTHER EREOHS OF SPEECH. 97 

One should not saj, '* I knew that I ivould he 
sea-sick." What is intended to he expressed is 
a lively presentiment, which had mentally, and 
perhaps verhally, taken the form of a prediction. 
The sentence should he, " I knew that I sJiouId 
be sea-sick." 

^'I would be pleased to have you dine with 
me," means that "I should like to be pleased to 
have you dine with me;" which is as much as to 
say, "As matters stand, I am 7iot pleased to 
have you dine with me." 

All such expressions as "I zuould like to go," 
— " I ivould. prefer to see it," — " I ivould be de- 
lighted," — are incorrect; all meaning the reverse 
of what the speaker intends to say. They 
should be, "I sJioidd like to go," — "I sJioiild 
prefer to see it," — " I sJiould be delighted." 

Just as, in the first person, in the case of 
shall and will, will is frequently used for sJiall, 
but not sJiall for will; so, in the first person, 
in the case of sJiould and would, ivould is fre- 
quently used for sJiould, but not should for would. 

word ought. "We say, '"I should not lose the opportunity of 
hearing so great a prima donna." " He should dress 
better," etc. Should, however, is frequently used in the 
stronger sense, implying didij. 



VULGARISMS 

CHAPTER XIII. 

USE or THE WRONG VERB* 



Lay for Lie. 

Lay is frequently used for lie ; as, " He laid 
down," — " He was laying down." 

The confounding of the two verbs To Lie and 
To Lay originates in the circumstance that the 
form lay belongs to both verbs. One can lay a 
thing down. The thing can be laid down. But 
it lies (not lays) on the table, ground, or wherever 
it may be placed. One can lay himself or herself 
down. But, in so doing, he or she lies (not lays) 
down. ^'He lay (not laid) down at three 
o'clock." " She was lying (not laying) down." 
^'They had lain (not laid) down." 

In ^Childe Harold,' Byron says, 

" in some near port or bay, 

And dasliest him again to earth : — there let him Zay." 

That, however, was done, by poetic license, to 
get a rhyme for hay. 

* Vulgarisms and other errors. 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 99 

Set for Sit. 
Set is often used for sit; as, ''Set down for a 
moment." The sun sets^ but a human being sits. 
A hen is generally said to set, but she does not 

— she sits. 

Lit for Lighted. *' 

"The gas is lit,'' is often said, instead of, 
"The gas is lighted.'' The word lit may be 
used as a colloquialism, but it should not be writ- 
ten, unless in representing conversation. 
Lit for Lighted or Aliglited. 

Lit is frequently used for lighted or alighted; 

as, "The cat lit on its feet." The word is a 

colloquialism. 

Rise for Raise. 

i^ise is sometimes used for raise; as, "Help 
me to rise this chest." The sentence should be, 
"Help me to raise this chest." 
Raise for Rise. 

Raise is often used for rise ; as, " How many 
feet does the tide raise?" The sentence should 
be, "How many feet does the tide rise?" 
Wrench for Rinse. 

" Wreneh off those dishes," and similar ex- 
pressions, are constantly heard, not only among 



100 VULGAllISMS 

servants, but among people who should know 
better tban to use tbem. Dr. Elwyn, in his 
' Glossary of supposed Americanisms/ citing 
Brockett and Holloway as his authorities for the 
derivation of the word rench^ adds, "The New 
England pronunciation is hardly so strong, but 
is rens;" which remark agrees with tlie writer's 
observation. Dr. Elwyn and they, be it observed, 
do not suppose the word to be wrench, but re-nch, 
an old word with the same sound, and signifying 
to rinse. Whatever may formerly have been the 
case, the illiterate now say and intend to say 
wrencJi, for rinse."^ 

Allow for Say. 
" He allowed,'' is sometimes used for "hesofzt?;" 
but it seems to be employed as a more forcible 
expression than " lie said " — rather more in the 
sense of promised, asserted, affirmed; as, "He 
alloived that he would give me a ticket," — 
"He alloived that he could not be mistaken," 
— " He alloived that he would sooner die than 
do such a thing." In any one of these senses, 

^'Brockett gives '^rencli to rinse. Isl. (Icelandic) 
hrein.'ici, to make clean. Dan. reuse, to clean. Swed. 
rensa, to cleanse." 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 101 

or in that of to say, it is a Yulgarism of the 
deepest dje. 

These senses are corruptions of that meaning 
of the verb To Allow, which signifies to admit, to] 
achnoivledge. We can with propriety say/ 
"He allowed (admitted) that the arguments 
were forcibly presented," — "He allowed (ac- 
knowledged) that he had been in the wrong." 
Learn for Teach. 

Learn is frequently used for teach; as, "I 
will learn you how to do it." The verb To 
Learn, with that meaning, was used by Shakes- 
peare and other old writers, and when they 
wrote, was good English; but, among the edu- 
cated, it was obsolete even in Dr. Johnson's 
time, and it has not been revived. 

Love for Like. 

Although the word love may be applied t0| 
many things less exalted than those capable of 
inspiring the passion of love, there are limits 
beyond which it cannot properly be used. 

In its least strong sense, it signifies a lively 
afi'ection for an object. One may, without 
shame, say that he loves books, that he loves 



L. 



102 VULGAKISMS 

the Fine Arts, that he loves Nature. All of 
these things concern one's mental being. We 
say of a miser, that he loves money ; not be- 
cause we recognize money as a proper object 
of love, but because we wish to convey the 
idea of the intensity of the passion mastering 
one who hoards. 

It is evident, therefore, that one cannot with 
propriety speak of loving food. If persons 
really mean what they say, when they speak of 
loving oysters, cake, ice-cream, etc., it is con- 
fessing a deplorable circumstance, which they 
would do better to keep to themselves. 

Like is the proper word to use of the best dish 
that ever came to table. And, well-cooked 
dishes are good, excellent, delicious^ exquisite, 
what you will — anything but elegant. " This 
pie is elegant,'" may be heard at half the hotels 
in the country. Magnificent beef and splendid 
coffee are not uncommon. 

Predicate for Base. 

How the word -predicate ever came to be used 
in the sense of to base as, " He predicated his 
opinion on the conviction," etc., is a mystery. 
The word affirms of somethino;, that it involves 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 103 

something else. Contentment i^ predicated of 
virtue — that is, contentment is assumed to be 
the consequence of living virtuously. General 
good health may be "predicated of- a sound 
constitution. The word conveys the idea of the 
existence of an inseparable adjunct. 

Agreeahhj Disappointed for AgreeaMy Surprised. 

Some words, etymologically considered, have 
a right to a certain meaning, but do not possess 
that meaning. They have had it and lost it. 

There is no reason why one coming to an 
expected point {ad punctum), should not, on 
finding it more agreeable than anticipated, be 
agreeably ^appointed. But it so happens, that 
usage makes the verb To Disappoint mean, to 
encounter something contrary to our wish or 
desire, vexatious; and, consequently, we cannot 
be agreeably disappointed, although we may be 
agreeably surprised. 

Prejudiced for Prepossessed. 

*' Prejudiced in favour," is an expression to 
which, etymologically, there is no valid objection. 
Prejudice means, primitively, premature judg- 
ment. But although premature favourable judg- 



104 VULGARISMS 

ment can be formed, as well as premature un- 
favourable judgment, for the word prejudice is 
reserved the expression of the idea of premature 
unfavourable judgment. 

Tell any man, literate or illiterate, that 
another "has a prejudice," or, ''is prejudiced'' 
(without saying favourably or unfavourably). 
and what does he understand ? — that the feel- 
ing in the mind of the one spoken of is ad- 
verse to the person or the thing mentioned. 
Under the same conditions, tell any man, 
literate or illiterate, that another "has a pre- 
possession," or, "is prepossessed," and he will 
understand just the reverse of the last concep- 
tion — that the sentiment is favourable. And 
J Qi prepossession means simply the ^r^-possession 
of the mind by a ^re-judgment. 

Of course, as there are two sides to every 
question, a prejudice, being adverse to one side, 
must necessarily be favourable to the other; 
but this action is indirect, and we cannot there- 
fore draw from the circumstance the inference 
that prejudice itself may be favourable. Etymol- 
ogically considered, as has been remarked, itmay 
be favourable, but usage makes it unfavourable. 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 105 

Prepossessed^ when used alone, is used in a 
good sense, and prejudiced^ when used alone, is 
used in a bad sense. We say also, " Prepossessed 
in his favour," — '^ Prejudiced against him." It 
therefore sounds like a contradiction in terms, 
to hear "Prejudiced in his favour.'' We hear, 
without violence to our idea of congruity, "pre- 
possessed against him." The reason of this is, 
that the word prepossessed is not employed so 
exclusively in a good sense, as the word preju- 
diced is in a bad one. 

Dickens, in his Preface to ' American Notes 
for General Circulation,' published in the 'Dia- 
mond Edition' of his works, says, "Prejudiced I 
am not, and never have been, otherwise than in 
favour of the United States." He therefore 
holds, if he wrote what he meant to write, that 
it is possible to be prejudiced in favour. How- 
ever, great as is the genius of Dickens, he cannot, ^s 
after deliberately endorsing "Our Mutual 
Eriend," besides other solecisms in English, be . 
reckoned in the category of very correct writers. 
Get Under Weigh for Get Under Way. 

We frequently see printed, " The ship was 
getting (or got) under iveigli.'' 



106 VULGARISMS 



I 



To iveigh (heave up) the anchor of a vessel, is 
to perform an operation preliminary to putting 
her on her course. To get under way, is 
^to execute the manoeuvre which includes the 
weighing of the anchor, the setting of the sails, 
— or, in the case of steamers, the movement of 
the engine, — the stationing of the helmsman, 
and, in fiict, all the operations incidental to a 
vessel's movement on her course. To have got 
under way, is to have completed all of these 
operations, and to have a vessel moving under 
the guidance of her helm. 

Signalize for Signal. 
It would be hazarding little to. say that, 
twenty years ago, the verb To Signal was em- 
ployed as descriptive of the telegraphing between 
vessels at sea; and that the verb To Signalize isj 
a substitute which has gained favour chieflyi 
since that time. 

To signalize should be reserved for the ex-1 
pression of the idea of one's distinguishing one's J 
self by some glorious deed, or for that of an ^ 
action's enhancing the brilliancy of any attribute ] 
or lesser quality possessed by man, as '' Horatius j 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 107 

Codes signalized himself by the exploit of de- 
fending, single-handed, the bridge over which 
Porsenna's army was endeavouring to advance," 
or, " He, on that occasion, signalized his valour 
and his skill in arms." 

The addition of the syllable ize to,.the verb To 
Signal, is even more objectionable than its ad- 
dition to the verb To Jeopard; because the change 
in the former, unlike that in the latter, makes 
the verb in appearance and in pronunciation 
identical with one of an entirely diiFerent 
signification, 



VULGAMSMS 

CHAPTER XIV. 

USE OP THE WRONG NOUN.* 



I 



Balance for Remainder. 

All expressions, in wliicli halanee is used 
instead of remainder, are incorrect; as, "The 
halanee of the morning," — " The halanee of the 
army retreated," etc. 

The word balance marks the relation between 
the two sides of the same thing. Etymologically, 
it relates to scales — balances. In correct usage, 
it is applied to the adjustment of accounts, or to 
things which from their nature may be likened 
to accounts ; as, " Our accounts balanced," — 
" There is a balance outstanding against him for 
his rascally behaviour." 

Remainder, on the contrary, relates to what is] 
left of a single thing, or set of things, persons, 
ideas, or whatever, in fact, is susceptible of 
being reckoned as a part or as particulars of 
one whole; as, " The remainder of the cake," — 

* Vulgarisms. 



AND OTHER EERORS OF SPEECH. 109 

" The remainder of the trinkets," — ■" The re- 
mainder of the guests," — "The remainder of 
the arguments, speeches, toasts," etc. 

Balance, with its legitimate meaning, was and 
is used in the language of trade, and there ac- 
quired the corrupt meaning with which it has 
entered popular language. 

Reference for Recommendation. 

Reference is frequently used instead of recom- 



For instance : A servant girl, seeking a situa- 
tion, refers to some one with whom she has lived, 
as being willing to recommend her. In so doing, 
she gives her reference, not her recommendation. 
Yet the person who wishes to employ her, in 
case that the recommendation prove satisfactory, 
often speaks of " getting her reference,'' the very 
thing which had been obtained. 

Preventative for Preventive. 

No mistake is more common than the use of 
preventative for preventive ; as, " Quinine is a 
great preventative of Chills' and Fever, as well 
as a remedy for the disease." There is no word, 
'preventative. We should say, " Quinine is a 
great preventive,'' etc. 



110 VULGARISMS 

Notoriety for Distinction, 
The word notoriety^ when used in relation to 
persons, is restricted to a bad sense — the mean- 
ing of unenviable distinction. Yet it is some- 
times applied to a distinction which the user 
regards as praiseworthy ; as, " He attained 
great notoriety in the best society of London." 
Within a few days, the writer saw this sentence 
in print: "It (a play) brought him in what he 
then wanted, viz., notoriety.'' 

When applied to persons, the word notorious, 
even more than the word notoriety, emphatically 
marks a bad sense ; as, " His conduct Avas noto- 
rious.'' 

We can, without dispraising, employ these 
words, and also the word notoriously, in relation to 
alleged faets. Even then, however, they do not 
convey the idea of commendable prominence in the 
associated agents, but merely that of wide-spread 
public belief in occurrence. We can, for example,* 
say: — "lam surprised that you did not hear of the 
affair, considering its notoriety," — "That intel- 
ligence, not meant for the public ear, constantly 
transpires, is notorious," — "Measures for a suc- 
cessful outbreak had notoriously been precon- 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. Ill 

certed." The nature of the subjects generally- 
characterized by the words proves that, even 
■when not applied to personal publicity, the bad 
sense of the words predominates. 

As applied to facts, the words are either con- 
demnatory or non-committal. As applied to 
persons, they are always condemnatory. 

Wife for Wo)nan, 'Girl, Ladij. 

" He married his wife lately." A man cannot 
marry his wife. He can marry a girl, he can 
marry a woman, he can marry a lady; but he 
cannot marry his wife. The woman is not his 
wife until he has married her, and as soon as she 
is his wife he cannot marry her. 

"He married a wife from New York." Well, 
then she with whom he went through the cere- 
mony is liable to prosecution for bigamy, and he 
is liable to prosecution for — something else, if he 
knew that she was married. 

"He married a Western woman," — "He 
married a girl from the East," — "He married 
a lady of this city," — "He married a widow," 
are all correct expressions, which may be varied 
still more, and, with appropriate changes for 



112 VULGAllTSMS 

difference of sex, be applied to the expressions 
beginning with, " She married." 

Most readers probably remember the anecdote 
told ' of Sheridan, to the effect that, when coun- 
selled by his father " to take a wife," he replied, 
^'Certainly,, father, whose wife shall I take?"* 
Hall for Entry. 

In feudal times, the hall was the great room 
of the castle, the place where its chief and his 
family eat their meals at the head of the table 
at which sat their retainers also, each placed 
according to his rank. The word has several 
other legitimate applications; as, for example, 
" The Hall,'' meaning the manor-house of large 
estates, — "The servants' hall,'' meaning the 
sitting-room allotted to servants, — "The Halls 

* The English Bible is high but not faultless authority 
in our language. We there find the expression, " married 
a wife." There seems to be no reason why, in that place, 
*the original Greek word yvvdiKa should not be translated 
woman. That is the primitive sense of the word, and we 
have no reason to believe that, in the passage alluded to, 
it was used in other than its primitive sense. 

The context is the only guide to indicate when the word 
should be translated looman, and wher it should be trans 
lated wife. 



i 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 113 

of Congress," — "A Musical EaU/'—nny large 
room devoted to the purpose of assembly. 

In all applications of the word, size and 
adaptation to an assembly are indispensable to 
the constituting of a hall. The calling an entr^/ a 
hall is therefore a misapplication of the term. In 
this country there are, as a general rule, no halls 
in dwellings. When, however, a house is so 
constructed, as is sometimes the case, that there 
is a large room at the entrance, through which 
communication with the rest of the house is 
established, it may properly be styled a hall. 
But to apply the term to the largest entr^, is 
more absurd than to call it a corridor ; which at 
least means a passage-way in a building, although 
it does mean a magnificent passage-way, and the 
building in which it is must be an edifice. 

The misuse of the word hall has come from 
the petty motive of trying to exalt small things 
by high-sounding names. The eifect naturally 
produced is to debase them. 

Residence for House. 

The use of the phrase '^my residence,''^ for the 
phrase " my house,'' from whatever motive it may 
now proceed, originally proceeded from that 



114 VULQAlilSMS 

attributed in the last paragraph ; people having 
been actuated in this case, as well as in the 
other, bj the desire to imply magnificent cir- 
cumstances. 

My residence is a grand name for my house.', 
"When thus used, as synonymous with house, the 
phrase is incorrectly used. A man may have 
many residences, but can divell only in one house. 
He may have many residences and diuell nowhere. 

Kearly every person has some one place which, 
however little he may stay there, he recognizes, 
. and others recognize, as his home. If he is in 
foreign parts, he, on being asked where he lives, 
mentions his country ; if in his country, he men- 
tions his city or his town ; if in his city or town, 
he mentions his domicile. It is evident, there- 
fore, that residence in a place, whatever duration 
it may have, does not, as long as it is regarded 
as temporary, constitute living in that place, in 
the sense with which we speak of one's living in 
such and such a country, or in such and such a 
city, or in such and such a house. What is true 
of the word residence, meaning the act of residing, 
is also true of its derivative, the word residence, 
meaning house — that is, as residing does not 



I 



ArD OTHER ERROES OF SPEECH. 115 

mean living permanently, so neither does resi- 
dence mean liome. 

The difference between living or dwelling, and 
residing,ma,jhe thus exemplified : — " Mr. Jones 
lives in America, but he is residing abroad." 
"Many Southerners used to live, during the 
winter, on their plantations, and, during the 
summer, used to reside at the North," — "Mr. 
Brown's house is in this city, but, during a por- 
tion of the year, he occupies one of his country 

residences,'' — "Lord has four large estates, 

and an establishment in London, and he goes so 
constantly from one residence to another, that 
he may be said to have no home.'' 

It will be perceived that these terms are not 
interchangeable. In a word, when a person 
resides long enough in a house to constitute it a 
home, it ceases to be a residence, and becomes 
his dioelling, domicile, house, home. 

"My house," although it may also signify 
''^mj property," is synonymous with "my home." 
We generally live (not reside) in this or that 
house (not residence). When we can properly 
use the words reside and residence, depends upon 
circumstances, and can in every case be easily 



116 VULGARISMS 

ascertained, if considered in the light thrown on 
the subject by the preceding remarks and ex- 
amples.* 

* The only consideration tliat should reconcile us to the 
word residence, as synonymous with the words house and 
liome, is the circumstance that this use of the word may be 
regarded as presenting a truthful picture of the social as- 
pect of the United States. "With no law of primogeniture, 
and peopled by an energetic democracy, a country where 
success achieved by one generation of a family cannot be 
maintained without the personal exertions of their descend- 
ants^ presents a peculiar phase of civilization, in a nomadic 
social condition, in which the tenure of none is so secure 
as rightly to be deemed more than residence^ 

In the prevalent use of the word residence, in the for- 
mula of fdneral notices, there may lie a deeper meaning 
than we imagine. Certain it is, in view of the fact that, 
at longest, man's stay on earth is but a brief sojourn, 
nothing can be more appropriate than one's speaking of a 
person's being buried from his "late residence." 



AND OTHER ERROHS OF SPEECH. 

CHAPTER XV. 

USE OF THE WRONG WORD (MISCELLANEOUS).* 



OnJi/ for Except or Unless. 

Instead of the word expressive of a certain 
idea, another, expressive of a totally different 
idea, is sometimes employed. 

On a sign-post, near Albany, appears the fol- 
lowing notice : — " The ears will not stop at this 
station, only when the bell rings." It is clear 
that this wording informs the passengers that 
the cars will stop, not only at times when the 
bell rings, but also at other times ; from which 
intimation they would be justified in concluding 
that the cars would alivays stop at the station, 
whether the bell did or did not ring. The notice 
should be : — " The cars will not stop at this 
station, except when the bell rings ;" or, better 
still, '^unless the bell rings." If desired, the word 
only can be retained, merely by omitting the 

* Vulorarisms and other errors. 



118 VULGARISMS 

negative; thus, " The cars will stop at this sta- 
tion, only when the bell rings. 

Contemptible for Contemptuous. 

A person sometimes says of another, "I have 
a very contemptible opinion of him." Under 
the circumstances, to laugh in one's sleeve is 
admissible, the difficulty is to avoid laughing out- 
right. 

A man once said to Dr. Parr :— '' Sir, I have 
a contemptible opinion of you." " Sir," replied 
the Doctor, "that does not surprise me : all your 
oj)inions are contemptible.""^ 

Contemptuous relates to the feeling of con- 
tempt experienced by the mind; contemjytible, to 
the object which excites contempt. 
Due for Oioing, 

The use of due for oiving is a very common 
mistake, and is sometimes made by good speakers 
and writers. 

We may say, "It is due to such and such a 
one, to state that he has," etc. This is a legi- 
timate use of the word due^ which, in the con- 
nection, refers to a verbal acknowledgment, the 

^' The same anecdote is related of Porson. 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 119 

justness of making wliich resembles the obligation 
of a debt. But we sbould not say, " The success 
of the scheme was due solely to his exertions;" 
we should say, " The success of the scheme was 
owing (attributable) solely to his exertions." 
In for Into. 

The expressions " He walked in the house," 
— "He jumped in the cellar,"— and all similar 
expressions, are incorrect, with respect to the 
use of the word in instead of the word into. 

"When one is outside of a place, he may be 
able to get i^ito it ; but he cannot do any thing 
in it, until he has got into it. 

Quite for Considerable or Large. 

"He inherited quite a fortune," — "He has 
quite an amount of building materials on hand." 

All expressions like* the preceding ones, in 
which the word quite is used as if relating to a 
noun, are incorrect. It must relate to an adjective. 
We may say, " He inherited quite a large fortune;" 
or, " He has quite a large amount of building 
materials on hand." In these sentences, quite is 
an adverb, (qualifying the adjective large. In 
those, it was incorrectly used, as if qualifying 
the nouns fortune and amount. 



120 VULGARISMS 

We can say quite tall, quite sJiortj quite hril- 
liant, quite insignificant, etc. ; but not quite an 
amount, quite a number, quite a fortune, quite a 
house, quite a ??za?z — tlie last a very common)- 
expression applied to big boys. 
Some for SomeioTiat. 

Some is often used for somewhat, especially in 
New England; as, "He is some better to-day," 
— " He reads some and writes some and walks 
some every day." 

^?z?/ for At All. 

Any, in the sense of at all, can be used in 
sucli phrases as, " He does not feel any better 
(or any worse)," — " He does not ride aw^more," 
etc. ; but we should not say, "He does not write 
any,'' — "He cannot see any,'' — "At present, 
he does not walk any," — " She has not learned 
to dance any," 

Convenient for Near. 

The use of convenient, as signifying conducive 
to comfort, is a correct application of the word. 
As things which add to comfort must necessarily 
be easily obtainable, accessible, therefore near, 
a misuse of the word convenient, as a synonyme 
for near, has obtained currency. 



I 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 121 

To say, "The provision store is very conve- 
nient/' meaning that it is very convenient to be 
able to avail one's self of the provision store in 
general, or of a provision store in particular, is 
correct; but to say, " The provision store is very 
convenient,'' or "^qyj convenient io i}iQ house," 
meaning that it is near the house, is incorrect : 
although it is true that the nearness of a store 
is an important element in its convenience. 
Nearness, or easiness of access, or general 
attainability, are, in all cases, merely incidental 
to the idea conveyed by the word convenient. 
Either, Or — Neither, Nor — Not, Nor. 

"It was neither for his benefit or for that of 
any one else," — " It was not done either for the 
one reason nor for the other," — '' She is not 
amiable or sincere." 

All of the preceding sentences are incorrect. 
Or is the correlative of either; and nor, of neither 
and not. The sentences should be : — " It was 
neither for his benefit, nor for that of any one 
else," — "It was not done either for the one 
reason or for the other," — " She is not amiable 

nor sincere." 

9 



152 VULGARISMS 

Bad for Badly» 

"He feeb very had,'' is sometimes said as 
descriptive of one's feeling very sick. To feel 
had is to feel conscious of depravity ; to feel 
hadly is to feel sick.* 

Good for Well, 

"He can do it as good as any one else can," 

is sometimes said instead of, "He can do it as 

well as any one else can." A person cannot do 

a thing good. The proper word to use is well. 

Eitlier for Each. 

Either is often improperly used instead of 
each. The following example of this is given by 
Mr. Seth T. Hurd, in his ' Grammatical Correc- 
tor:' "Suppose an engineer were ordered to 
erect a fort on eitlier side of the Hudson river, 
and he should build one upon its right bank only; 
would not all agree that he had complied with 
the order ? but not so, had he been directed to 

* It is frequently stated that tlie English never use the 
word sick in the sense which with us is attached to it. 
English literature proves the contrary : although it is true 
that the English do generally use the word ill to express 
the idea which we express by the word sick. 



AND OTHER ERRORS OP SPEECH. 123 

build one on each side of the river ; for then he 
must build two forts, instead of oneJ" 

Both Lowth and Harrison give the following 
examples of the incorrect use of either : 

" They crucified two others with him, Dn either 
side one, and Jesus in the midst."* 

"On either side of the river was there the 
tree of life." f 

Like for As. 

Like is often improperly used for as» One 
can say — "Just like me," as a child answers its 
playmate's "I went up one pair of stairs." 
But one should not say — "Just like I didJ'^ 
Yet we hear such expressions as, " Like we used 
to do,'' — "Like toe did yesterday." Like is 
followed by an objective case, not by a nom- 
inative case and its verb. 
I Stopping for Staying, 

We read every day in the newspapers, or hear 
in conversation, that So-and-so is stopping at 
such and such a hotel. 

"* The Douay Bible has, " They crucified him, and with 
hiin two others, one on each side, and Jesus in the midst." 

t The Douay Bible has, '•' On hctli sides cf the river 
was the tree of life." 



124 VULGARISMS 

To stop is to bring progress to an abrupt ter- 
mination. One can saj, "I stopped for a 
moment," indicating a pause of that duration. 
Strictly speaking, the pause cannot have longer ^ 
duration : it is convenience that dictates a modi- 
fication of the meaning of the word. "We may 
therefore say that a person stopped for -an hour 
or two. Manifestly, greater latitude of con- 
struction is inadmissible. The attempt to 
enforce it leads to a palpable violation of the 
idea which the word represents. A man cannot 
stop for a week or a day. If he stops^ he 
stays, until his journey, or his locomotion of 
whatever sort, is resumed. The proper expression 
therefore is, that So-and-so is staying at such 
and such a hotel. 

Hardly for Hard. 

The labourer is worthy of his hire, but he 
would not wittingly make the appeal that is 
sometimes made for him — to receive promptly 
his Aar(i??/-earned wages. 

^arc?Z^-earned is scarcely earned — that is not 
earned. Hard-earned is the proper phrase. 

Occasionally we read even of a man's dying 
hardly. In the account of an execution is to be 



AND OTHER ERROHS OF SPEECH. 125 

found the following sentence : — " He died rather 
hardly^ owing to the noose slipping after he had 
dropped," etc. If he died hardly, he hardly 
died, and was unmercifully hung. The writer 
of the description meant that the man died hard, 
which might, or might not, have been the exe- 
cutioner's fault. 

Minny for Minim, or Minnow. 

A very small fish is a minim, or a minnow, not 
a minny. The word in the best usage is minnow. 
Such for So. 

Such relates to quality ; so relates to degree. 
One can with propriety say, "I never saw such 
a man, such a house, such a view;'' because, the 
expressions involve the comparison of quality, 
not that of degree; but one cannot with pro- 
priety say, " I never saw such a handsome man, 
such a fine house, such a heautiful view, because 
the expressions involve the comparison of degree, 
not that of quality. One should say, " I never 
saw so handsome a man, so fine a house, so beau- 
tiful a view." 

The phrases, such a high, such a long, such a 
wide, such a narrow, and all similar ones, are 
incorrect, and should be, so high, so long, etc. 



126 VULGAJRISMS 

Most for Almost. 

Most, as an adverb, means in the greatest 
degree. Almost, compounded of all and most, 
is an adverb, and means, very nearly. 

It is incorrect to say, " They see each other 

most every day." This implies tha,t they see 

each other less every night, instead of stating that 

they see each other nearly (or almost) every day. 

Couple for Two. 

Any two things of the same kind, joined 
naturally, artificially, or morally, can correctly be 
spoken of as a couple. The word is not appli- 
cable to two of the same kind of things, merely 
because they are two in number. The Siamese 
Twins are an unusual couple, but certainly a 
couple, besides being two. A man and his wife 
are a couple. A yoke of oxen is a couple. 
Even such things as two volumes of a work com- 
prised in two volumes may be called a couple. 
Ornary for Ordinary. 

Ornary is a corruption of the word ordinary. 
The writer's hearing it in early life was confined 
to its application by the low to the low, and to the 
restricted sense of lewd. Later in life, he again 



I 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 127 

met witli the word, in one of the States which 
shall here be nameless, where it is habitually 
used by a very respectable class of people who 
apply it not only in the sense of lewd, but in that 
of ordinary and had. Thus used, its effect is at 
times somewhat startling; for a person will 
speak of another as being very ornary, meaning 
lewd, and will address his child reprovingly, 
with, "Oh, you ornary little thing," meaning 
simply "You naughty little thing." 

The word in either sense is shocking, and 
should never pass the lips of any one. 



VULGARISMS 

CHAPTER XVI. 

SINGLE NEGATIVES AND DOUBLE NEGATIVES * 



" Did not do (or say) nothing." 

The very head and front of the oifending in 
the use of two negatives must not be allowed to 
escape notice. 

In English two negatives make an affirmative. 
To do notJiing is to be in a state of inaction, not 
to be in that state is, of course, to be in a state 
of action. Therefore, to say, "I did not do 
notliing^' — "I did not say notJiing^'" — is to say, 
"I did something," — " I said something." 

There are cases in which it is proper to 
use two negatives. For if one be unjustly 
accused of having done nothing, he may with 
propriety reply, *'I did not do notliing^' — 
meaning, as shown above, "I did something." 

There are many sentences in which two nega- 
tives are used intentionally and correctly, and 
aid in forming a more elegant expression than an 

* Vulgarisms. 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 129 

equivalent affirmative proposition would form; as, 
" Do not think tliat he does not appreciate your 
kindness," the equivalent of which sentence is, 
"Think that he appreciates your kindness." 
Jn every case, however, two negatives form an 
affirmative proposition. The common mistake 
committed is in attempting to make thorn indi- 
cate a negative proposition. 

" He is not improving much, I don't think." 

The expression, " I think that he is not improv- 
ing much," means, " I do not think that he is im- 
proving much;" but the common expression, " He 
is not improving much, I don't think," means 
"I do not think that he is not improving," that 
is to say, "I think that he is improving," the 
reverse of what the speaker intends to say. 
" Did not see him but once," etc. 

The expressions, *'I did not see him hut once," 
— "I have not hut one," are incorrect; if the 
person who uses them intends to say, that he 
saw the other no more than once, or that he has 
only one of a certain kind of thing.* 

^ If the word hut, in suck connections, retained the 
meaning of except, with which it was formerly used in 



130 VULGAHISMS 



4 



To say that a person lias hut one, means that 
he has only one. To say that he has not only one, 
means that he has more than one. To say that 
a person saw another person hut once, means that 
he saw the person only once. To say that he 
did not see the person only once, means that he 
saw the person more than once. 1 

The sentences should he, " I saw him but once," 
— "I have but one;" or, "I saw him only 
once,"— ''I have only one." 
"Had not hardly (or scarcely) a minute to spare." 

To say of some one that ''he had hardly (or 
scarcely) a minute to spare," means that he had 
less than a minute at his command ; but to say 
that "he had not hardly (or not scarcely) a 

them, it would be correctly used. In saying, " I have not 
but one," we should be saying, " I have not (any) except 
one," just as we now say, " It is nobody hut me," meaning 
it is nobody exsept me — not, " It is nobody only me." » 
That the word but in the above-cited examples is used in 
the sense of only, will be apparent to every one on a mo- 
ment's reflection ; for no one can fail to recollect having 
frequently heard a person say, " I have nH but one," and 
then, almost in the same breath, subjoin, " I tell you I 
liavenH only one." 



AND OTREii ERRORS OF SPEECH. 131 

minute to spare," means that he had more than 
a minute at his command, and just what persons 
who say, " I had n't hardly (or scarcely) a 
minute to spare," do not mean to say. 
" Do not doubt but that," etc. 

When one says, " I do not know hut that I 
shall go to New York to-morrow," one uses, if 
not an elegant, a correct elliptical, idiomatic 
expression, which may be analyzed thus : — " I 
do not know of any obstacle to my going to New 
York to-morrow," — the other course (not going) 
presents no inducement to make me abstain from 
going. When, however, one says, "I do not 
douht hut that I shall go to New York to- 
morrow," one says the very reverse of what 
was intended, and states, that the only thing 
doubtful to his mind is the thing which he means 
to state is not doubtful. 

The uncertain tenure of life sometimes in- 
duces one to reflect that he may not see to-mor- 
row's sun, but that to-morrow's sun may not 
be seen by any one is a thought that rarely en- 
ters the mind. Suppose, then, that we say, " I 
doubt not that the sun will rise to-morrow." 
The sentence means, '' I firmly believe that the 



132 VULGARISMS 



I 



sun will rise to-morrow." But if we say, " I do 
not doubt hut that the sun will rise to-morrow," 
we remark that the sun's rising to-morrow is the 
sole occurrence of which we doubt. It is plain, 
therefore, that we cannot, when we wish to 
speak of the probability of an occurrence, say, 
"I do not doubt hut tliat^'" etc., but must say, 
"I do not doubt that,'' etc. 

A late public telegram announced that "A care- 
ful canvass of the Senate leaves no doubt hut that 
the nomination of," etc. What purpose, except 
to mar the sense, is accomplished here by the use 
of hutf The wording should be, "A careful 
canvass of the Senate leaves no doubt that the 
nomination of, "etc. The following item, in which 
the same mistake occurs, will be recognized as an 
extract from a late paper : — '' There is no doubt 
hut that Mr. Gurr is a swimmer of great skill 
and powers of endurance." .... "Those 
who have actually witnessed the performance can 
have no reasonable doubt hut that it is all it 
professes to be," etc. Again the wording 
should be : — " There is no doubt that,'' etc. — 
"no reasonable doubt that." etc. 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 133 

There is a vulgarism in the use of hut what. 
With the view to simplicity, let us recur to the 
first example given, modifying it to suit the 
present purpose : — " I do not know hut what I 
shall go to New York to-morrow." What mean- 
ing, in this case, that which, and hut meaning 
exce'pt, the sentence signifies : — "I do not know 
except that which I shall go to New York to- 
morrow," which is nonsense. 

Were one to say, " I have nothing hut tvhat 
you see," or, "you have brought every thing hut 
what I wanted," one would speak correctly. 
These sentences mean, "I have nothing hut (or 
except) that ivhich you see," — "you have 
brought every thing hut (or except) that which 
I wanted." Are not these sentences quite dif- 
ferent from this sentence: — " I do not know hut 
what I shall go to New York to-morrow." 



VULGARISMS 

CHAPTER XYII. 

OBSOLETE, OBSOLESCENT, AND LOCAL.* 



M 



Disrememher for Do not Tememher, 
The word disrememher is obsolete. It is a 
low vulgarism. 

Despisahle for Despicable. 
Despisahle is an Englisli word, but it is not 
now used in the language of tbe educated. Des- 
picable is the word which they use. 
Gotten for Got. 
Cfotten is English still, but it is nearly obsolete. 
Yet some speakers and writers have an unac- 
countable partiality for it. 

Proven for Proved. 
Proven does not enjoy the wide use and 
sanction of good speakers and writers,that should 

■^ Vulgarisms and other errors. 

The word local is here used as referring to the whole of 
the United States. Millions of people,elsewhcTe,spc'ak 
English. 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 135 

entitle it to take precedence of proved. It is 
used chiefly in Scotland. 

Illy for 111. 

Illy is often incorrectly used for ill. It lias 
not the authority derived from good usage. 
Overly for . Over. 

Overly for over is heard in such phrases as, 
"I do not think that he is overly bright," — 
"She is not overly nice," — "He is not overly 
particular in such matters." 

The word is obsolete, except among the vulgar. 
Biddable for Obedient. 

There is no such word as biddable. The word 
for which it sometimes does duty is obedient. 
Unbeknown for Unknown. 

Unbeknown is obsolete in good usage. 
f. Sett for Set. 

The connection in which sett is generally 
found is in advertisements of china, chairs, fur- 
niture, or any articles consisting of pieces of the 
same kind ; as a sett of chairs, o^sett of mirrors, 
a sett of china, etc. Set should in all cases be 
spelled s-e4. 



VULGAKISMS 



CHAPTER XVIII. 

TAUTOLOGICAL PHRASES.* 



"Prom hence," — ''from thence," — "from whence." 

In the words lienee, thence^ toJience, is included 
the idea conveyed by the word from. 

Hence means from this place, thence means 
from that place, whence means /rom which place. 

Probably no other mistake in English has 
been so frequently made, even by good speakers 
and writers of the language, as the use of the 
three words hence, thence, ivhence, preceded by 
from; many, knowing it to be a mistake, falling 
into it from the sheer force of habit. 
"New beginner." 

One may, after having failed in an attempt, 
make a new beginning, and analogy may per- 
haps be strained so far as to permit, us to 
consider such a person, on a renewal of his at- 
tempt, a neii) beginner. But it is unreasonable, 
although not unusual, to apply the phrase to one 

* Vulo^arisms and other errors. 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 137 

who is beginning for the first time. The ex- 
pressio^j is a pleonasm — a superfluity of words. 
" Equally as good as," — " equally as good." 

As good as means equally good; therefore, 
equally as good as means equally, equally good. 

As good, also, means equally good, and equally 
as good therefore means equally, equally good. 

In the common phrase, '^equally as good as,'* 
— one can strike out both as's, or else strike 
out equally. In the other common phrase, 
^'equally as good," — one can strike out the as, 
or else strike out the equally. 

A thing is as good as another thing, or it is 
as good, or it is equally good with another thing, 
or it is equally good. For example : " This is 
as good as that," — "This is as good,'' — "This 
is equally good with that," — " This is equally 

good." 

" In any shape or form." 

' How can any one suppose that he is adding 
to the force of his language, by saying, " In any 
shape or form," the meaning of the words shape 
and form being identical ? 

'' Robert he,"—'' Susan she." 
Some persons never use a personal proper name 
without adding to it the pronoun appropriate to 
10 



138 VULGARISMS 

the sex of the individual mentioned ; as, " Susan 
she was going down the street, and Robert he met 
her a few doors from her house." This is a 
^ very inelegant, not to say vulgar mode of ex- 
pressing one's self. 

" This here,"—" that there." 
The use of this here, and of that there, instead 
of this and that, is incorrect. Alone, the word 
this, or the word that, relates to one of two 
things, this referring to the one near, that to the 
one more remote. In like manner, referring to 
two sets of things, these relates to the one near, 
and those to the one more remote. 
" For to go/' etc. 
The present infinitives to walk, to run, to see, 
to go, and all others, are not preceded by the 
word for; as, for to walk, for to run, for to see, 
for to eat, etc. We should say, " The child tried 
to walk,'' — "The horse started to run,'' — "What 
do you wish to see .^— " What is wholesome is not 
always what the palate decides to be fit to eat.'' 
" Natural talent." 
Talent is natural, there should not be the slight- 
est doubt of it, nor that talent cannot be acquired. 
It is absurd to say, natural talent. 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 16\) 

Crabb, in his 'English Synonymes,' says: — 
"Talents are either natural or acquired, or in 
some measure of a mixed nature ; they denote 
'^ powers without specifying the source from which 
they proceed; a man may have a talent for 
music, for drawing, for mimickry, and the like ; 
but this talent may be the fruit of practice and 
experience, as much as of nature." This is a 
strange remark, as coming from an author of 
nice discrimination. Talent is not only in no 
degree the fruit of culture, but its absence is the 
more painfully manifest in proportion to the 
sedulousness of the endeavours at its cultivation 
by a person who mistakenly conceives himself to 
be its possessor. True, we speak of a person's im- 
proving his talents, but we do not mean that the 
talents themselves are improved ; we mean merely 
that they are turned to good account. Taking one 
of Crabb's illustrations : Suppose that a man has 
a talent for music, and that, throuorh devotion 
to the art, he becomes an adept as a performer. 
His talent is not a whit greater or less than when 
he commenced to study. What he has gained 
is the reward of his perseverance, his labour, his 
conscientiousness, in having tried to turn his 



140 VULGARISMS 



I 



talent to good account, in having tried to render 
it productive. 

Just in this sense is the word used in the 
I Scriptures, in the Parable of the Talents, from 
, which we derive the sense with which the word ■. 
is currently accepted. There, talents themselves 
are represented as capable of increase,' because 
they are the principal and interest of money. 
The increase, owing to the symbol adopted by our 
Saviour, is necessarily of the same nature as the 
principal. The deep and beautiful significance 
that underlies the Parable, however, is that the 
gifts of God must, in proportion to their value, 
be turned to good account in His service, and 
that He will demand a final reckoning. What 
return will He demand ? The inevitable answer 
proves that this definition of talent is correct. 
He will demand, not the talents themselves, but 
the works that they enabled the possessor to per- 
form. The principal, in the spiritual sense of 
the Parable, is necessarily lost with life, but the 
interest in good works, although remaining on 
earth, is to the faithful servant treasures laid up 
in Heaven. 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 141 

Talent is far inferior to genius, still it is a gift 
of a high order, and therefore exceptional ; and, 
with respect to it, and from a worldly point of 
view, one may be absolutely destitute. 

If these reasons, carefully weighed, establish 
the impropriety of the expression "natural 
talent," with greater facility must they establish 
the impropriety of the expression, "natural 
gift.''' The word gift designates what, at the 
least, is natural, what is sometimes supernatural, 
as the " gift of tongues" to the disciples. Yet 
even the phrase "natural gift" is frequently 
used. Observe, in the contrast afforded by the 
two following sentences, what force is gained in 
one of them by the omission of a word: — "Elo- 
quence is a natural gift^'' — "Eloquence is a 
gift'^ Can any one doubt which to choose? 



VULGARISMS 

CHAPTER XIX. 

MISCELLANEOUS WORDS, PHRASES, ETC.* 



^ 



" Extra nice." 
Uxtra, contracted from extraordinary/, is in- 
tolerable when not restricted to certain sub- 
jects. A man may with propriety say "I 
had to pay extra for baggage," "There was 
an extra charge for reserved seats," and so 
on. But if he says, " This house is extra 
nice," — "I do not consider him (or her) any 
thing extra," his language smacks of the shop. 
Now, the shop is a very good thing in its 
way. Most of us came from it, and are likely, 
either in our own persons, or through some of our 
descendants, to go back to it. Directly or indi- 
rectly, we live by it, or are benefited by it., 
Far be it from any one to impugn its merits or 
malign it. But the language of the shop never 
was and never will be the criterion of elegance. 
If we can speak of an ^' extra nice girl," why 

* Vulgarisms and other errors. 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 143 

not speak of an "excellent lim of people," or of 
an "-A No. 1 man," and, if some one has lost a 
fortune, saj, that he or she "has been marked 
down.'' 

The younger Dumas said, in reply to an 
artillery officer who at an evening party had 
begged him to recite one of his own compositions, 
"Certainly, if you will bring your park of ar- 
tillery here, and fire a salvo." 

In general society, one's language should be 
untechnical. The thoughts and the language of 
trade should be reserved for trade. In society, 
people meet, or should meet, on a broader plat- 
form. There, it is in extremely bad taste to 
" talk shop." 

"In our midst." 

This afflicting vulgarism is so common now, 
that one might imagine the phrase to be stereo- 
typed in some printing houses. It is a pet 
phrase. The expression is in the extreme in- 
correct and, from the immoderate use of it, 
ridiculous. 

Owing to the form of a similar expression in 
the Bible, and to the quaintness of it, charac- 
teristic of the whole style of the Sacred Writ- 



144 



VULGAPtlSMS 



ings, the expression there is neither incorrect 
nor inappropriate. "Now whilst they were 
speaking these things, Jesus stood in the 
''midst of them, and saith to them: Peace be to 
you; it is I, fear not." — St. Luke xxiv. 36. 
"Now when it was late that same day, the first 
of the week, and the doors were shut, where the 
disciples were gathered together for fear of the 
Jews, Jesus came and stood in the midst, and said 
to them: Peace be to you." — St. John xx. 19. 
In the first passage quoted, it is to be ob- 
served that the expression is " in the midst of 
them,'' In the second passage quoted, the ex- 
pression is merely, "in the midst;" but the 
clause immediately preceding speaks of the dis- 
ciples as being gathered together, and "in the 
midst" means, as in the first sentence, in the 
midst of them, 

■^ In the midst means in the middle. In our 
midst therefore means in our middle. If one 
should say, "In the midst of us (or of them)," 
the phrase may be tolerated ; though why one 
should choose an antiquated phraseology to ex- 
press what can readily be expressed by saying 
among us, or amongst us, is a mystery difficult to 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 145 

solve.* Verily is a good word, but in ordinary 
converse, truly is preferable. 

To guard against possible misconstruction, it 
may be well to add, that there are certain con- 
nections in which the use of the phrase in the 
midst, and of the word amidst, is neither anti- 
quated nor vulgar; such as, "He fell fighting 
bravely in the midst of the enemy," — "It was a 
hut in the midst of a forest," — ^'Amidst great 
applause the speaker resumed his seat," — 
"Amidst the pleasant scenes of childhood." 
" To simply state," etc. 

The to of the infinitive mood is inseparable from 
the verb. Yet the liberty is frequently taken of 
interposing an adverb between it and the verb. 
The following are only a few of the examples of 
this mistake seen,in print, ■v\ithin a few weeks: — 
To boldly resist, — To seriously injure, — To le- 
gally acknowledge, — To simply state, — To deeply 
realize, — To still exhibit, — To ra'pidly recruit, — 
To gradually change, — To not only ruin: — 
the last one actually having two adverbs inter- 
posed between the particle to and the verb. 

* The phrase commonly and incorrectly used, expresses 
the idea of the presence of some one in a community. 



146 VULGARISMS 

" I do not like too mucli siiga,r," etc. 

Siicli expressions as, "I do not like too much 
sugar," — "I do not like to walk too far," are 
supremely ridiculous. One does not like to have, 
or to do, too much of any thing. The proverbs, 
*' Enough is as good as a feast," — "Too much* 
of a good thing is good for nothing," show that 
the meaning of the word too is well understood. 
Why, then, will people use such expressions as 
those quoted ? 

"I seemed to think so and so." 

It is impossible, except to some metaphysicians, 
to doubt the existence of thinldng, or to doubt 
the existence of what is thougKi; and persons 
who use the above phrase are not metaphysicians. 
We think, when awake, always ; and that we 
think, and what we think, can never be doubtful 
to our own minds. Hence we cannot say, " I 
seemed to think." 

"He lias a right to do it," etc. 

Singular as the fact may appear to some per- 
sons, the phrases, "He has a right to do it," — 
"He has a right to see to it," and similar ones, 
are often used by others to signify, that a certain 
individual ought to do or to attend to a certain 
thinoj. 



AND OTHER ERIlOrvS OF SPEECH. 147 

Between one's right to do a thing, and one's 
obligation to do it, there is a vast difference. 
One may have the right to do a thing, and not 
be under the slightest obligation to do it. This 
is too evident to need demonstration. 
'' Just as livs." 

JJivs is a corruption of lief, or rather, of the 
obsolete word lieve. '' I had as lief — " I would 
just as lief," are idiomatic expressions, in 
the first of which, the words I had are the cor- 
ruption of the words I would. ''I had just as 
livs,'' is vulgar. 

" A most a iDeautiful," etc. 

The expressions, "Jl most a beautiful," — "^ 
most a splendid," — ^'A most an elegant," — ^^A 
most an awful," fix the educational grade of 
the speaker at the lowest point known to our 
civilization. 

We should not even say, ^'A most beautiful," 
— "-4 most splendid," etc. Each of a number 
of objects cannot be most beautiful. Only one 
can be most beautiful, and that is necessarily 
the most beautiful. Most is, in the latter sen- 
tences, used improperly in the sense of very. 



148 VULGARISMS 



Omission of the final '*^" in pronunciation. 

Many persons never pronounce " g " in words 
ending with that letter, but say Jiavin, taJcin, 
^leavin, swimmin, etc., instead of having, taking, 
leaving, swimming, etc. 

Indiscriminate omission of the apostrophic "5." 

As in speech the adding of the sound of "s" 
to the end of a word in the singular number 
conveys to the ear the sign of the possessive case, 
so, in writing or in printing, the adding of the 
apostrophic "s" to that word conveys to the 
eye the sign of the possessive case. 

!N"ouns in the singular number, ending in s, ss, 
ce, X, sometimes form exceptions to the general 
rule for indicating the possessive case. 

Mr. John Wilson, in his ' Treatise on English 
Punctuation,' gives the following examples of 
this class of words: — '^ Moses' rod," — ^-for 
righteousness' sake," — " for conscience' sake," — 
"the administratrix' sale." 

He adds these observations : " This mode 
of punctuation holds good chiefly in proper 
names having a foreign termination, and in such 
common nouns as are seldom used in the plural, 
—an exception to the rule of forming the posT 



I 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 149 

sessive singular, which is founded on the propriety 
of modifying the disagreeable nature of the 
hissing sound. 

" Recourse, however, should not be had to the 
principle laid down in the preceding remark, 
when its adoption would cause ambiguity, or 
when the addition of the s is not offensive to 
a refined ear. For instance, the Italic words in 
the phrases, ^ Burns' s Poems,' ^ James s book,' 
' Thomas's cloak,' 'the fox's tail,' though they 
contain the hissing sound, are not particularly 
unpleasant, and are far more analogical and 
significant than the abbreviated forms, ' Burns' 
Poems,' ^James' hook,' ' TJiomas' cloak,' Uhe 
fox' tail.'" 

The test as to whether or not, in any given 
case in the singular number, the duplicate s 
should be used, is applied by the ear ; and, as the 
delicacy of that organ varies in different indi- 
viduals, practice also will vary : but there is no ^ 
reason why it should be discordant. To omit 
the s always, as some persons do in writing 
and in ^:?mifm^, is a barbarism as gross as the 
general omission of the duplicate sound would be 
in speech. 



150 VULGARISMS 



The following examples of the proper use of 
the apostrophe^ in nouns in the singular number, 
ending in various letters, are taken from Mr. 
Wilson's book : 

^'Adam's book, not Adams's: the book did 
not belong to Adams. 

John Quincy Adams's death was no common 
bereavement. 

"Sir Humphrey i>at;?/'s safety-lamp. — '^ Da- 
vis's Straits. 

"Josephus's 'History of the Jews' is a very 
interesting work. 

''^Andrew's hat, not Andrews's. — Andrews's 
' Latin Keader.' 

"For quietness' sake, the man would not enter 
into any dispute. 

"Col. Mathews's delivery. — Matthew's Gospel, 
not Matthews' s. 

" The witness's testimony agreed with the facts 
of the case. 

"Let Temperance' smile the cup of gladness 
cheer. 

" We will not shrink from life's severest due. 

" There is no impropriety in speaking of the 
cockatrice' s den. 



I 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 151 

"A friend should bear 2^. friend's infirmities. 

"Like the silver crimson shroud, that Phcehus' 
smiling looks doth grace. 

"A man's manners not unfrequentlj indicate 
his morals. 

"After two years, Porcius Festus came into 
Felix s room."* 

In a noun in the plural number, ending in s, 
the apostrophe ( ' ) is placed after the s (s') witJiout 
the addition of another s. The possessive case 
of a noun in the plural number, ending in s,ca,n 
never be formed by adding an s preceded by 
an apostrophe. For example, we do not and 
could not say or write, " The witnesses's testi- 
mony," but "the witnesses' testimony" — the 
plural possessive case corresponding to the 
singular possessive case, " the witness's testi- 
mony." 

The following examples of the proper use of 
the apostrophe in nouns ending in s,m the plural 
number, are taken from Mr. Wilson's book : 

* On signs, the possessive case of the word cent is 
often put, instead of the plural number of the word. On 
cars, for example, we sometimes read, "Fare, 7 cent's," 
instead of, "Fare, 7 cents." 




152 VULaAKISMS 

" On eagles' wings lie seemed to soar, — " Our 
enemies' resistance," — "The ladies^ gloves and 
shawls were exceedingly handsome," — " He must 
strike the second heat upon the Muses' anvil," — ? 
" Thy mercies' monument."* 

* The indication of tlie possessive case of nouns no^ end- 
ing in s in tlie plural is too variable to receive- complete 
notice in a work of tHs character. Some of these nouns in 
the plural, instead of being used in the possessive case? 
are used as parts of compound words, as dice-box. 

In the plural nouns men, women, oxen, and others termi- 
nating in 671, we form the possessive case regularly, thus : — ■ 
7nen^s, women^s, oxen's. In the word people, — which is 
plural when it does not signify a nation, — although we 
form the possessive case people's, we not only do not form 
possessive cases mice's, geese^s, but we do not use the 
words in the possessive case otherwise marked. The 
words feet and teeth are not used in the possessive ease. 
These examples prove how variable is our practice in regard 
to the formation of the possessive case in nouns not ending 
in 5, in the plural number. However, the termination of 
s in the plural belongs to most of the nouns in our lan- 
guage, compared with which those terminating otherwise 
are not only relatively, but absolutely, few in number. 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 

CHAPTER XX. 

TASTE. 



On the authority of the proverb, " There is 
no accounting for tastes," many persons presume 
to say that there can be no standard of taste. 
Taste, however, is not a thing, here, there, any- 
where, and wherever it is, equally good. 

The faculty is common to mankind, but the de- 
velopment of it is possible only in civilization, and 
general excellence in its decisions attainable only 
by individuals of iBne organization, moving in 
the highest refinement of that civilization. 

Only the passions and the form of man are 
common to human beings. In all else there is 
divergence. Men are, first of all, stamped with 
the seal of their kind, then with that of their 
race, then with that of their civilization, then 
with that of their society. Despite of individu- 
ality, they receive the firm impress of every one 
of these. We therefore may observe, that all 

mankind have the same hopes and fears, pleasures 
11 



154 VULGARISMS 



I 



and pains ; that individuals of each race have 
the same tendencies ; that individuals of each 
nation have the same views and ambition; that 
individuals of each class of society have the same 
feelings and tastes. 

Civilization comprises many degrees of pro- 
gress, from brutish ignorance to the highest 
culture of which man is susceptible. The taste 
of the individual corresponds with the general 
perception of the sphere in which he moves. 
Each within that sphere acquires from others, 
and evolves from his own mind, what consti- 
tutes the standard of taste there. This is appa- 
rent from the fact that individuals belonging to 
different classes of society do not coalesce. 
They cannot enjoy companionship with each 
other, because they entertain different funda- 
mental beliefs. The maxims which they deduce 
from these, their habits of thought, their feelings, 
their tastes relating to all the minutiae of life, are 
at variance. Dickens has somewhere said that 
two counting-house clerks cannot long sit on 
adjacent stools without establishing with each 
other a freemasonry of ideas, thoughts, and 
pleasantry, which is unintelligible to others. 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 155 

So it is in all society. The assimilative process 
is unceasing. If like seeks like, not less does 
association produce like. 

1 Taste, however, is not an arbitrary law im- 
posed on every one by the force of circumstances. 
This has already been conceded by the admission 
that every one exercises influence in the forma- 
tion of the standard of taste within the sphere 
in which he moves. With individuality, appear 
differences in taste among those who find the 
society of each other delightful. Certain differ- 
ences enhance instead of diminish the pleasure 
of social intercourse. They furnish subjects for 
thought and conversation, in the endle-ss com- 
parison of preferences. 

They who most study any one of the depart- 
ments of knowledge in which taste can be exer- 
cised, — and it is common to all except to science, 
— must, with the opportunity of examining the 
various . objects belonging to that department, 
make progress in ihe study. It would be in vain 
for one who has the finest natural perceptions, 
to hope to excel in taste, unless he has the oppor- 
tunity to make many comparisons. Reason 
regulates, but does not create taste. It is in 



156 VULGARISMS 

the application of reason to the comparison of 
various sorts of things of the same kind, that the 
principle of taste, common to all mankind, is in 
some who are peculiarly gifted with intellecti, 
and sensibility, developed to a point of exquisite 
delicacy. 

The highest taste in the things which belong 
to social intercourse is attainable by those only 
who combine in their own persons, intellect, sen- 
sibility, and the opportunity to mingle with the 
best society: that society which is formed of the 
educated elements in a civilized community. That 
society which represents every position in life 
held by the educated, which includes a certain 
proportion of people who have travelled, and 
a certain proportion of people who have re- 
tired from active life, is the best. Travelling 
enlarges the views, retirement from business gives 
leisure for culture, participation in it develops 
energy and character. The whole mass of a 
society composed of individuals so circumstanced 
is leavened by its component elements. 

If, then, we have access to such a society, 
or, if not, have the opportunity of ascertain- 
ing the tastes of such a one, wo may consider 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 157 

that we possess prima fade evidence of their 
correctness. We are justifiable in trying them 
by our own reason, to which all our decisions 
(must revert; but we should consider them 
the standard unless good cause can be shown 
why they should not be so considered. The 
probability is that any large number of persons, 
who, if only by the force of circumstances, must 
have devoted themselves to the amenities of life, 
have made progress in the study, beyond those 
who, being engrossed by more important cares, 
have had less leisure and opportunity for culti- 
vating them. 

Conspicuous, in one sense, in refinement, in 
which, in another sense, nothing can be con- 
spicuous, is the observance of those things which 
make no show. In nothing is refinement so 
surely tested as in habits of body and of mind. 
The refined are not nice in their persons be- 
cause they meet the world : cleanliness is a part 
of their education, and has become second nature. 
They do not express elevated sentiments because 
those sentiments are applauded, but because they 
entertain no others. A more just idea of a 
family's refinement can be obtained by a glance 



158 VULGARISMS 

at their private rooms, tlian by a leisurely survey 
of tlieir parlours. At table, they instantly reveal 
its grade, for elegant habits of eating cannot be 
simulated, and the vulgar betray their ordinary 
ones, either by grossness, or by clumsy attempts ■ 
at delicacy and fastidiousness. 

Refinement scorns pretence. It is not given 
in any thing to display or to meretricious 
ornament, but is marked by its simplicity and 
its repose. Even manners and speech are 
important in its eyes, because chiefly through 
them is held communion of mind. It does not 
debase great things by ignoble names, nor seek 
to dignify little things with noble names, divest 
any thing of what belongs to it, nor invest any 
thing with false appearances. 

Vulgarity, on the contrary, loves show in 
every thing. It has its private thoughts, habits, 
actions, speech, entirely different from their pub- _ 
lie counterparts. For the public, it puts on its 
peacock-plumes, and trails them in the dust, 
opens its lips to pour forth diamonds, and show- 
ers toads. 

Yet the occupant of no station in life, from 
the loftiest to the lowliest, is necessarily vulgar. 



AND OTHER EHRORS OF SPEECH. 159 

The dignity of human nature is the birthright of 
all: its tenure depends on their truth. Each 
actor on the world's stage has a part to play, 
which is well or ill sustained, none through life 
successfully acting any other than that of his j 
own character. The essence of vulgarity is pre- 
tence. In its falsity, to whatever degree exist- 
ing, lies that offensiveness which is so apparent 
to the world ; which is felt, ridiculed, and de- 
nounced, even by those who are utterly incapable 
of determining the nature of the cause in which 
their sentiments originate. 



VULaAEISMS 



CHAPTER XXI. 

EXAMPLES OF BAD TASTE.* 



"You know," and "says I," "says he," "says sLe." 
Very seldom does it happen tliat the educated 
contract the habit of interlarding their discourse 
with the phrases ?/ow Tcnotv, says I, says he, says she; 
but so common is the habit among the illiterate, 
and so frequent their introduction of the words, 
that the sound of their voices in conversation is 
often mainly composed of the buzz of these ac- 
companiments. f 

The phrase ''you know'' is allowable some- 
times, the other ones, never. Time past can- 
not be described with the language belonging 
to time present. It has previously been ex- 
plained, that there are exceptions to this rule : 
but they do not apply to the case now under 

* Vulgarisms. 

t The use of the phrase " at any rate,^^ is also very 
common. When the habit is confirmed, the three words 
are pronounced as if they were one — attenyrate. 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 161 

consideration. Even if it were not absolutely 
■wrong to employ the phrases ''says 2," ''says 
7ig," "says she,'' in referring to time which is 

i past, it is supremely ridiculous for one constantly 

^ to repeat that he said what he said. 

The exceptional case in which the phrase "you 
hnow'' ma,j be used, is where one narrating some- 
thing, part of which he is aware is known to the 
hearer, indicates, complimentarily, his knowledge 
of the fact, by introducing the phrase in an 
appropriate place. But as a series of pegs on 
which to hang discourse, you hiow, you hiow, 
you Jcnow, is intolerable. 

Marryatt gives, in ' The Pacha of Many Tales,' 
a very good illustration of the absurdity and in- 
veteracy of the habit of interspersing a narrative 
with "you know,'' and "says I," "says he,*' 
"says she." A man, in telling a story to 
the pacha, has been continually interrupted 
on account of his introducing you knows, has 
been threatened with condign punishment for 
a repetition of the offence, and has finally been 
dismissed to be bastinadoed, it would hardly be 
fair to say for his disobedience — for his ina- 
bility to obey. The man's companion, witness 



162 VULGARISMS 

of the scene, and interrupted in his story also, 
and cautioned to avoid his trick of introducing 
the phrase ^'says /," resumes the broken thread 
of his narrative, while an executioner stands pre- 
pared to cut off his head if he repeats '•'says T^ 
twice. Let us read the scene in Marry att's 
own words. Hussan, the story-teller, speaks : 

" I shall never be able to go on, your high- 
ness ; consider one moment how harmless my 
says Ts are to the detestable you knows of Ali. 
That's what I always told him; 'Ali,' says J, 
'if you only knew,' says 7, 'how annoying you 

are!' ' Why there,' s^^s / ." At this 

moment the blow of the scimitar fell, and the 
head of Hussan rolled upon the floor; the lips, 
from the force of habit, still quivering in their 
convulsions with the motioning which would have 
produced says 7, if the channel of sound had not 
been so effectually interrupted. 

"That story's ended!" observed the pacha 
in a rage. " Of all the nuisances I ever en- 
countered, these two men have beat them all. 
Allah forbid that I should again meet with a 
says, Z, or you hnowP^ 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 168 

"Your highness is all wisdom," observed 
Mustapha ; "may such ever be the fate of those 
who cannot tell their stories without saying what 
they said." 

Emphasizing some of tlie particles of speech. ^ 

No better criterion can be afforded of relative 
mental perception in different individuals, than 
their application of emphasis to what is read or 
spoken by them. Writers on elocution are prone 
to assert, without due qualification, that the rules 
of the art are deducible from nature; that emotion 
and passion always speak with just emphasis. 
That nature is the source whence those rules 
should be deduced, is not to be denied; but, 
unless we at the same time admit that, although 
the quality of the emotions and passions in all 
individuals is the same, the quality of their intel- 
lect and their training is widely different, we shall 
form no just rule for elocution. The language . 
of emotion and passion is shaped by the intellect 
and the training belonging to each individual. 
The truth of this assertion may very easily be 
subjected to test, by comparing the reading and 
speaking of the child and the illiterate, with the 



164 VULGARISMS 

reading and speaking of the adult and the 
educated. 

This is not the place to pursue the topic. 
The intention of what has been said is answered 
by the bearing which it has on the common and 
flagrant error of emphasizing some of the par- 
ticles of speech. Dickens's burlesque on the 
practice, in the following passage, will aiford as 
good an example as any one that could be 
selected. 

"*I have draw'd upon A man, and fired upon 

A man for less,' said Chollop, frowning 

We are the intellect and virtue of the airth, the 

cream Of human natur', and the flower Of moral 

force.' " * 

Step in for Walk in. 

No one can walk without stepping ; so, in 

itself, there is no objection to the expression 

'''■step in.'' It is, however, one which, with the 

meaning of an invitation to enter, is never used 

by refined people. It is a euphemism, which, 

in that connection, is an afi'ectation of elegance ; 

as if, in using it, one meant to imply that stepping 

is easier than walking. 

* Martin Chuzzlevvit. 



AND OTHER ERRORS OP SPEECH. 165 

There are many occasions on which the word 
step is the appropriate one to use. The fol- 
lowing examples will indicate the character of 
these occasions : — " Step on this chair, and you 
will obtain a better view of the procession," — ■ 
" No sooner had he stepped out of the door than 
he was attacked by three ruffians," — " Step 
under this shelter," — " Step aside, so that lean 
pass." On examining these, and all similar 
expressions in which the word step is correctly 
used, we shall find that the space of time occupied 
by the act is little more than momentary. 

Again, where particular attention is to be 
directed to the mode of walking, the word step 
is the proper one to use ; as, ^' He stepped along 
briskly," — ''He is so weak that he steps very 
slowly," — "In stepping along the tight -rope, 
she lost her balance and fell,"- — "In stepping 
over the curb-stone, he twisted and sprained his 



In extending an invitation to enter, or in 
speaking of a person's having gone out, we 
wish to draw particular attention neither to 
the time consumed in the act, nor to the mode 
.of its performance. We refer merely to the 



1^6 VULaARISMS 

result. The simjDlest manner is to saj, " Walk 
(not step) up stairs," — "Will you not walk 
(not step) into the parlour, and wait for a few 
minutes?" — "So-and-so has just gone (not 
stepped) out for a few minutes," — " He has gone 
(not stepped) around the corner." 

"Pay a call" for "Pay a visit.". 

A person makes a call or pays a visit. As a 
call is a short visit, there is no reason why the ex- 
pression '^pay a calV is not, in itself, as correct 
as the expression "-pay a visit. ^' But the heau 
monde, whose practice is final in determining such 
matters, say, ^'pay a visit'' and ''make a call." 
"Free to say," — "Free to confess." 

Grandiloquent men are particularly fond of 
using the bywords, "I am free to say/' — "J 
am free to confess." If a man can say a thing, 
let him say it like a man, without telling people 
that he is free to say it. 

Tasti/ and tastily for Tasteful and tastefully. 

Although the words tasty and tastily have 
been used by some good writers, they have at 
present a decidedly vulgar twang. Their special 
application to the words lady^ dress, and furni- 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 167 

ture^ affords more than an inkling of the cause. 
Tasteful and tastefully are correct words, with- 
out even the suspicion of vulgarity attached to 

fthem. 

Rig for Dress. 

In relation to using the verb To Hig, instead 
of the verb To Dress, Dr. Elwyn, in his ' Glossary 
of Supposed Americanisms,' says To Rig "is 
not in general use with any class, but, as a 
colloquial vulgarism, may be heard sometimes, 
though only in fun." 

This is an error. Many persons, as well as 
Dr. Elwyn, do suppose that To Rig is always 
used by way of pleasantry ; but the fact is that 
many girls never use any other word to signify 
making the toilet. 

Babe iov Bahy, 

The word hale, although perfectly correct, 
should be reserved for language above that of 
familiar conversation. We use it properly in 
speaking of the ' Babes in the Wood,' and we 
invariably find it in poetry. The household 
word being hahy, hahe sounds pretentious. 
Raised for Reared. 

Dr. Elwyn says, "Among the great mass of 
the people of this country, south of Philadelphia, 



168 VULGARISMS 

this word (rear) has given way to raise. One 
seldom hears, ' I shall have difficulty in rearing 
that child/ but almost always, raising; and, 
'where were you raised,' instead of brought up.'' 

The use of raise, in the sense of bring up, ^ 
or rear, is certainly no longer confined to the 
Southern States, as the preceding quotation 
implies, and both Webster and Worcester assert. 

In the phrases, '^to raise corn," — "^ raise 
wheat," — " to raise pigs" — " to raise chickens," 
etc., the word raise is correctly employed; but 
in speaking of the support and education of 
children, '•Ho bring u-p," or "to rear," is the 
preferable expression. 

Buried for Lost. 

To say, " I buried my youngest child last 
week," is surely an unrefined way of announcing 
so sad an event as its death. The fact can be 
more delicately communicated by a sentence of 
equivocal meaning. Even if a woman should 
say, "I lost my husband last year," no one would 
suppose that she meant to say she had dropped 
him in the street, or that he had run away. The 
phrase "Iburied" is coarse. It is the expression 
of the material instead of the morul aspect of 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 169 

the loss sustained. It recalls, graphically, a hor- 
rible incident of death. Burial, when it is over, 
should appear the minor incident. The one that 
the mind should cherish, the one around which 
the affections should cling, is the departure of 
the spirit, and its life in the other world. 
Cashet for Coffin. 

The scenes of death, as well as of life, test 
refinement. The difference in the sentiments 
with which they inspire different persons is 
marked through the long interval that divides 
a decent funeral from an Irish wake. What 
trifling with a serious thing it is to call a 
coffin a casket! "Can flattery soothe the dull 
eold ear of death?" The pleasant name of a 
coffer for jewels does not reconcile man to death 
and burial. Dread of death, and repugnance to 
decay, are instinctive, and cannot be altered. 
The fate may be faced nobly, if not boldly, fear- 
fully though trustfully, as is fit in the appointed 
mystery ; but man cannot, without grievous harm 
to his moral nature, gloss the truth ard give 
the lie to his conscience. 

Embalming Surgeon for Umbalmer, 

The process of embalming, although it requires 
the use of the knife, cannot properly be called 
12 



170 VULGARISMS 

surgery, which is operation on the living body. 
It is therefore a misuse of the term surgeon to 
apply it to an embalmer. It is quite common 
now to see advertisements of " embalming sur- 
geons." "My husband," once said a woman to 
the writer, is an ^'embalming surgeon." 

This mode of speech does not elevate any pro- 
fession. It is too evident an attempt to confer 
dignity by a name, and is suggestive of the 
speaker's consciousness that the object lacks 
dignity. 

The assumption of the title of Professor, by 
quacks, and by others more respectable than 
quacks, is now so common that, unless the title 
is coupled with the name of a person known to 
have a right to it, or with mention of a professor- 
ship, it means any thing, from a professor of 
astronomy to an artist in whitewashing. 
" Not one of that kind." 

''' I am not one of that kind,'' is a detestable 
vulgarism. A gentleman, or a lady, instinctively 
feeling self-description to be indelicate, never, 
directly or indirectly, except on compulsion, de- 
fines any point of his or her character. When 
he or she does, the language employed, not being 



AND OTHER ERKORS OP SPEECH. 171 

stereotyped, proves that the necessity is unusual, 
the act not habitual. Either, if constrained to 
put into words the idea contained in the phrase, 
'''lam not one of that hind,'" would probably say, 
"I am not capable of such an act:" which ex- 
pression implies extremity, the repelling of a 
suspicion or an accusation. 

Independent of the deep taint of vulgarity 
belonging to this expression, acquired by its use 
in self-application, it is a low vulgarism, even as 
applied to other persons ; thus, " He is not one 
of that kind." It has been used so undiscrimi- 
natingly,— used as a byword by the uneducated, 
— that it is associated with them only. 

The phrase, " ^/ie^f.'6)rsf7i;^?^c?," is a vulgarism less 
offensive than the one last noticed, only because 
it does not relate to character. It is a pity that 
every one who uses it could not be punished as 
was the merchant who wrote for some flour, 
telling his correspondent that he wanted it ''the 
very worst kind." 

Sweat ioT Perspiration. 

In certain connections, the word sweat is pre- 
ferable to the word perspiration, but those cases 
are exceptional. They are where the subject is 



172 VULGARISMS 



^ 



serious, where the language is figurative, or 
where the lower animals are concerned. 

In speaking of a horse, it would be ridiculous 
I to employ the word perspiration, and say, for 
example, "That horse is in a perspiration." 
Every one feels this to be true. There is a 
reason for it. In relation to even the. grosser 
bodily functions and their play in the lower 
animals, we speak with comparative unreserve. 
We do not, without necessity, allude to the same 
when appertaining to mankind. We, regarding 
ourselves as vastly superior to the brute creation, 
habitually ignore in like attributes any similarity. 

We can with propriety speak of administering 
a sweat to a patient. We can speak of a per- 
son's being subject to night sweats, an accom- 
paniment of some diseases. In matters so grave 
as illness and disease, the mind rejects, as paltry, 
any refinement of language not concerning the: 
grosser functions of the body, and chooses the 
most forcible term at command. 

There is nothing offensive in the word siveat, 
in the passage beginning, "In the siveat of thy 
face shalt thou eat bread . . . . " The subject 
is not only solemn, but the language is figurative, 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 173 

conveying the idea of hard labour. The figura- 
tive application of the word, derived from the 
original quoted, is constantly made in the ex- 
pression, "Living by the siveat of his brow." 
Again, in the history of the passion of our 
Saviour, we find the word used literally; we 
recognize it as the proper word, the only word 
that could convey the sense ; and we should reject 
the other with indignation. 

We find, then, that except in medical treat- 
ment, the word sweaty as applied to mankind, is 
ofiensive when it has direct personal application 
on ordinary occasions; as when one says, "I am 
in a violent sweat," — "You look as if you were 
in a sweat," — "He was in a sweaty condition." 
It expresses an extreme degree of the condition 
described by the word perspiration : a condition 
which is not agreeable to the sufierer, to the 
.witness, or as a picture presented to the mind. 
" Introduced to a gentleman." 

Many girls say, " I was introduced to a gentle- 
man," — "I had an introduction to a gentleman." 

Courtesy, derived from the chivalrous estima- 
tion in which the stronger sex holds the weaker, 
dictates its conceding to the weaker the privilege 



174 VULGARISMS 

of conferring obligation. A gentleman is intro- 
duced to a lady, she is not introduced to him.* 
The fact is that, inasmuch as they are made ac- 
quainted with each other, the introduction is of 
each to each. But politeness ignores that cir- 
cumstance; and a gentleman, being introduced 
to a lady, she graciously accepts him as an ac- 
quaintance. 

There are exceptions. A lady, unless she is 
an empress or a queen, is presented to an em- 
peror, a king, or any other potentate, or any 
high dignitary. It would be disrespectful to 
introduce a distinguished man to any ordinary 
lady, or to introduce an elderly man to a young 
lady. In these cases, the ceremony is reversed, 
the lady being introduced to the gentleman. 

It is impossible to arrive at a just conclusion 
regarding the correct application of the word 

* Althougli the -woxdi^ present and presentaUo7i, as well 
as tlie words introduce and introduction, are often em- 
ployed in speaking of the ceremony under consideration, 
present and presentation should be reserved for the most 
ceremonious kinds of introduction ; in which persons are 
presented to others of rank, as at court. Persons are 
also properly said to be presented to untitled men and 
women of distinction 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 175 

introduction^ unless we possess a correct idea 
of tlie significance of the ceremony. Is intro- 
duction merely a ceremony which makes per- 
sons acquainted with each other's names, and 
constrains them thenceforward to observe certain 
forms to each other when they meet? To 
make introduction complete, something more 
is necessary — the affirmation of the fitness of 
the introduced for each other's society; and this 
the introducer, if not the mere agent by mutual 
desire of the introduced, should tacitly guarantee. 
Introduction, save presentation at Court, 
which is only remotely like the private ceremony, 
takes place for two purposes. Persons may be in- 
troduced for the purpose of transacting business 
with each other, or for social intercourse, tem- 
porary or permanent. The unsolicited intro- 
ducer takes upon himself a responsibility which, 
according to circumstances, is either justifiable 
or unjustifiable. For either of the purposes for 
which his introduction is made, it is endorse- 
ment. He tacitly says, either "This person is 
desirable for you to treat with on business," 
or else, " This person is a desirable acquaintance 
for you in society." Yet how often is not this 



176 VULGAEISMS 

propriety ignored ! . Casual acquaintances intro- 
duce to each other their casual acquaintances. 
If a person stops to say half a dozen words to 
one in company with another, the form of intro- 
duction is often employed before escape is pos- 
sible. Through male and female acquaintances, 
of whom they know little or nothing, girls are often 
brought into contact with other persons equally or 
more objectionable; the security in the introduc- 
tion diminishing in inverse ratio to the numbers 
composing the widening circle of acquaintance. 
Many persons can bear witness that, from this 
freedom of manners, unpleasant and sometimes 
disastrous consequences flow. 

The rule for the unsolicited introducer to ob- 
serve is very simple : In business, not to intro- 
duce any one with whom he himself would not 
negotiate; and, as a general rule in society, not 
to introduce persons who are not likely to see 
each other again, to meet often, or who, if they 
are personally unacquainted with each other, may 
rationally be presumed not to wish to be made ac- 
quainted. Unless the formula of the introducer 
discriminates, and affords these guarantees, his 
action should be resented, as wantino^ in the 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECU. 177 

essence of the thing typified : not resented at 
the time and place, — that would be in worse taste 
than his, — but simply by avoidance of an em- 
barrassing acquaintance. 

'■ 'John Phoenix' hits well the prevalence of 
street introductions everywhere, when he says, 
speaking of San Francisco: — "You meet Brown 
on Montgomery street: 'Good morning. Brown;' 
'How are you, Smith?' 'Let me introduce you to 
Mr. Jones' — and you forthwith shake hands with 
a seedy individual, who has been boring Brown 
for the previous hour, for a small loan probably 
— an individual you never saw before, never had 
the slightest desire to see, and never w^ish to see 

again 

"Each gentleman to whom you have been 
introduced, wherever you may meet thereafter, 
in billiard-room, tenpin-alley, hot-house, or 
church, introduces you to somebody else, and so 
the list increases in geometrical progression. 
.... In this manner you form a crowd of ac- 
quaintances, of the majority of whom you recol- 
lect neither names nor faces, but being continually 
assailed by bows and smiles on all sides, from 



178 VULGARISMS 

unknown gentlemen, you are forced, to avoid the 
appearance of rudeness, to go bowing and smirk- 
ing down tlie street, like a distinguished charac- 
ter in a public procession, or one of those graven 
images at Tobin and Duncan's, which are 
eternally wagging their heads with no definite 

object in view " 

In good society, there are occasions, both in- 
door and out-door, on which persons, in every 
respect qualified to know each other, meet and 
converse without the ceremony of introduction; 
and to know when, and when not, to introduce 
persons to each other, is one of the signs of 
good-breeding. 



1 



AND OTIIEll ERLOllS OF SPEECH. 

CHAPTER XXII. 

CONCLUDING REMARKS. 



The desire to possess the mastery of one's 
mother-tongue may be stimulated by a higher 
motive than that which prompts to the acquisition 
of an accomplishment, or even to the attainment 
of what we call information. Far more inti- 
mately than most of us are aware, language is 
interwoven with our inner life. Our knowledge 
of it has grown with our growth ; our ideas have 
been shaped and fixed by its symbols ; our affec- 
tions are entwined with its endearing terms. It 
has ministered to our ennoblement, or assisted 
in our degradation. It both bears and returns 
the impress of the individual and the public mind. 
If men wish to debase objects, to disguise un- 
pleasant facts, to appease their consciences, they 
compass all these ends by words. Great is the 
relief in words ministering to failings and sins 
— most lenient father-confessors ! Through lan- 
guage comes also to men every elevated senti- 



180 VULGARISMS 

ment that thej possess, their experience of the 
past, their hope for the future. They cannot 
afford to dispense with seeing clearly through 
the medium through which they view all that it 
is possible for them to learn, and communicate 
all that it is possible for them to impart; and 
just in proportion to the clearness of that 
medium to their mental vision is their ability to 
discover and to reveal truth. 

In the course of time it comes to pass that 
virtues, vices, even follies set their seal on lan- 
guage; that in proportion to the truthfulness 
with which it has been used, certain words have 
retained their significance, or with it impaired, 
and sometimes lost, present under transparent 
disguises men's secret springs of action.* When 
the present era belongs to the past, and the 
educated of future generations look back on our 
civilization as transmitted through our language 
and literature, how, mingled with its progress 
and attainment in every department of know- 
ledge, will vulgarity be exhibited in the degrada- 

* For an interesting elucidation of this subject, tlie 
reader is referred to Dean Trench's work ' On the Study 
of Words.' 



AND OTHER ERKORS OF SPEECH. 181 

tion of many words by Tvliich the attempt has 
been made to substitute the shadow for the 
substance of things! To penetrate no more 
deeply into the subject, let us see how even folly 
may for some write its history, and for others 
inculcate its lesson, by a change in words. For 
the purpose of illustration^ we need not seek for 
an example beyond the pale of our own civilization. 
Chief among these words, as offering evidence 
of the degradation of words by usage, and of the 
degrading reaction of that usage, are the terms 
gentleman and lady. What a longing for and 
an unworthy assumption of a mantle which cannot 
be snatched, but which falls unsought on the 
shoulders of those worthy to grace it, are shown 
by their loss of significance ! What pernicious 
effect their reaction has had on many, in- 
appreciative of their import, blinding them to 
the dignity of labour, sire of Independence, 
"lord of the lion-heart," causing them to im- 
agine that with it refinement is incompatible, and 
associating it in their minds with degradation! 
How little must the import of the words be 
appreciated by thousands of both sexes, by whom 
gentility is thought to centre in money, and by 



182 VULGARISMS 

other thousands of both sexes, by whom it is 
thought to centre in dress ! 

The sign is ominous when votaries of gentility 
are ashamed of the names of men and women. 
How ignorant must they be not to know that all 
human worth is based on true manhood and true 
womanhood ! How little must they reason not 
to perceive that, if so, all their existence is the 
veriest sham ! But if they cannot perceive this, 
how can they be expected to see, that, although 
manhood and womanhood constitute all respecta- 
bility, of themselves they do not create the 
higher rank of which they are the indispensable 
basis? that it is derived from nature and educa- 
tion, so subtly blended, that whether it was born, 
or whether it grew, is impossible to discover in 
the effect. 

/ There never was and there never can be a 
nation composed wholly of ladies and gentlemen. 
The sooner the fact is realized and tacitly ac- 
knowledged, the sooner will the titles be raised 
from the mire in which they have been trampled 
by a multitude of pretenders ; the sooner will 
they cease to mislead and degrade the ignorant, 
who, unable to discriminate between the essence 



AND OTHER ERRORS OF SPEECH. 183 

of a tiling and its usual accompaniments, sink in 
the mire, in the vain attempt to sustain too 
weighty a dignity. 

Of one thing we may rest assured. If the 
character of gentleman or lady cannot be ex- 
tracted from every nature, is not latent in every 
breast, and we may safely affirm that it is not, 
naught but education can bring it to light in 
whomsoever it does lie concealed. And education 
does not signify mere book-knowledge : that is 
the least of its constituents, and may more prop- 
erly be termed a concomitant. In proportion to 
opportunity enjoyed, — careful observation, asso- 
ciation, and study are in the path that, under 
Providence, terminates in the vista of a well- 
spent life, whence to the traveller lingering on 
the confines of two worlds, the retrospect may 
well afford contentment, and the prospect, hope. 



A REYIEW 



MK G. ¥ASHmGTON MOOI'S 



'DEAFS ENGLISH' AND 'BAD ENGLISH.' 



13 ( 185 ) 



'THE DEAN'S EKGLISH' AND 'BAD ENGLISH.' 



My intention is to review the two critical 
works of Mr. Moon — 'The Dean's English,' 
and ' Bad English.' I premise that I enter- 
tain a high opinion of his correctness as 
a writer, and that the object which I have 
in view, in calling attention to the errors in 
those works, is public instruction. I coin- 
cide with Mr. Moon, when he says, that " the 
faults of teachers, if suffered to pass unre- 
proved, soon become the teachers of faults ;" 
and that, " he who assumes the office of public 
critic, should himself be prepared to submit to 
the ordeal of public criticism through which 
he has made others pass." Mr. Moon, great as 
is his skill in criticism, possesses, if he knows 
himself, more modesty than that which falls 
to the lot of many critics, for he says also : — 
*'I no more lay claim to infallibility than I 
do to omniscience. I endeavour to impart to 
others whatever knowledge I have acquired ; 
and I am always glad to receive instruction 
in return." 

(187) 



188 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' 

The books" from wliicli 1 shall draw my 
material for the criticisms which I am about 
to make, are of English editions; — 'The Dean's 
English,' of the fourth and sixth editions ; 
and ' Bad English,' of the first edition. As 
the paging of the fourth and sixth editions of 
' The Dean's English' differs, I shall content 
myself with giving the numbers of the pages 
on which errors may be found, in the fourth 
edition. 

In 'Bad English,' Mr. Moon takes Lindley 
Murray to task, for employing the subjunc- 
tive mood in places where he should have 
employed the indicative mood ; yet he him- 
self, in ' The Dean's English,' employs the 
subjunctive mood in places where he should 
have employed the indicative mood. On 
pages 7 and 8 of ' Bad English,' Mr. Moon 
remarks, that 

" Some persons, intending to be strictly accurate in 
their expressions, always say ; — * if it 6e,' ' tliough it loere ;' 
never, ' if it is,^ ' though it loas.^ Tliey imagine that ' if, 
^though,'' and certain other conjunctions which imply 
contingency, ought always to be followed by a verb in the 
subjunctive mood. But it is only when such words imply 
a concurrence of contingency and futurity, that the verb 
should be in the subjunctive mood. When there is either 
contingency without futurity, or futurity without contiu- 



AND ' BAD ENGLISH.' 189 

gency, the verb must be in the indicative mood ; as 
Liudley Murray himself says, on page 307." 

After thus expressing himself, Mr. Moon 
censures Lindley Murray for writing, 

" A consonant is not of itself a distinct articulate voice ; 
and its iufiuence in varying the tones of language is not 
clearly perceived, unless it he accompanied by an opening 
of the mouth, that is, by a vowel." (p. 51.) 

" If this he admitted, it follows, that the noun and the 
verb are the only parts of speech, which are essentially 
necessary." (p. 64.) 

*' When a discourse is not well connected, the senti- 
ments, however just, are easily forgotten ; or, if a few he 
remembered, yet their general scope and tendency, hav- 
ing never been clearly apprehended, is [are] not remem- 
bered at all." (p. 193.) 

Mr. Moon is rigTit in censuring Lindley 
Murray for using the subjunctive mood in the 
preceding sentences. But how does his own 
rule in 'Bad English,' how does his own 
practice in ' The Dean's English,' agree with 
his strictures? We refer the reader to the 
following sentences from ' The Dean's Eng- 
lish' :— 

"I submit it to the reviewers whether your sentence he 
not altogether faulty." (p. 10.) 

" Whether my application of the rule he fallacious or 
not, let others judge from this letter ; and as to whether 
the rule itself he only a supposed rule," etc. (p. 13.) 



190 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' 

" To differ where tlie wise are not agreed, if it he a 
fault," etc. (p. 22.) 

"Yet if this be not what the preface means," etc. (p. 
48.) 

" If this 6e correct," etc. (p. 98.) 

These errors, if thej are (not he) errors, re- 
main in the sixth edition of ' The Dean's 
English.' Mr. Moon, omitting, in the sixth 
edition, the passage in the fourth edition ; — 
"You tell us that Hhan' governs an accusative 
case. What nonsense !", substituted this for 
it ; — " You tell us that ' than' governs an 
accusative case. If that he so, why did you," 
etc. The conclusion is inevitable, that it is 
Mr. Moon's practice to employ the subjunc- 
tive mood where, according to his teaching, 
the indicative mood should be employed. 

I shall now notice some other errors, 
which occur in the fourth edition of ' The 
Dean's English,' and which reappear in the 
sixth edition. 

Mr. Moon, addressing Dean Alford, says : — 
"So also, on page 195, 'a journal published 
by these people.' By what people ? Where 
is the noun to which this relative pronoun 



I 



AND 'BAD ENGLISH.' 191 

refers?" (p. 35.) ^^ Tliese^^ is not a relative 
pronoun ; it is a demonstrative pronoun. 

"We read: — "I must leave it to the public 
to decide whether I have deserved siich a dis- 
tinguished title ;" — " With all due deference 
to such a high authority on such a very im- ^ 
portant matter." (pp. 43, 44, 45.) I sub- 
mit it to the critics to decide, whether Mr. 
Moon should not have said,—" so distinguished 
a title;" and "50 high an authority on so 
very important a subject." 

On page 48 we fiud a sentence beginning 
with, — " I guess you do not mean to imply 
that it is with poems as with people," etc. 
The sentence should be worded thus: — '^I 
guess that you do not mean to imply that it is 
with poems as with people," etc. The inter- 
polation of " thaf renders it more precise and 
perspicuous ; and the repetition of the word 
is not offensive to the ear. On page 108, in 
the following sentence, " that'^ is improperly 
omitted, — " I see [that] you still say 'treated,' 
rather than ' treated of,' " etc. 

Of the following two errors in the fourth 
edition of ' The Dean's English,' the first is 
corrected in the sixth edition, and the second 



192 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' 

does not appear tliere, in consequence of the 
intentional omission of a long passage in 
whicli it occurred, 1. "I wished to show, 
bj your own writings, that so far were you 
from being competent to teach others English 
composition, that you had need," etc. (pp. 43, 
44.) The second " ^Aa^" is redundant. 2. "We 
should, perhaps, ultimately find ourselves, for 
brevity's sake, adopting the style exemplified 
in the anecdote given by Farrar, and which runs 
thus." (p. 110.) What Mr. Moon thinks of the 
use of ^'' and which^^ under such circumstances, 
may be found on page 22 of 'Bad English,' 
where he says : — " Another, almost equally 
common, is the ' and which} error. This con- 
sists in the words * and whicW being employed 
in a sentence not containing, in the previous 
part of it, the word ''which^'' either expressed 
or understood. The error is one that young 
writers frequently fall into ; and, strange to sa}^, 
it is found in some of even Lindley Murray's 
sentences." Some persons may think that, 
in the sentence quoted, the word " which'^ is 
understood. Mr. Moon, probably, does not 
refer to such sentences. However, in the 



AND 'BAD ENGLISH.' 193 

sentence quoted, the use of " and icltidt^ is 
wrong ; for the words " and which^'' require 
the word " uihkli^^ preceding and expressed. 

The reader will scarcely think that, after 
I had concluded my strictures upon ' The 
Dean's English,' I ought to have particula- 
rized its merits. Its reputation is established. 
It has received approval from authorities 
whose judgment is unimpeachable. In the 
late editions, it appears with many and great 
improvements. It is, however, to be regretted 
that Mr. Moon has in the late editions intro- 
duced a final letter addressed to Dean Alford, 
in which letter he insinuates in the plainest 
possible manner, that the Dean, in his ' Plea 
for the Queen's English,' plagiarized from 
'Bentley's Quarterly Eeview.' The charge 
is substantiated by many collated passages, 
which are printed in a separate part of ' The 
Dean's English.' But the truth or the falsity 
of the charge does not enter into the question 
which we are about to touch. It may be 
right, indeed it may properly be deemed 
obligatory on those who have in charge the 
interests and therefore the honour of literature, 
to arraign the Dean for his misdemeanour ; but 



194 THE dean's ENGLISH' 

Mr. Moon should not be cliief-prosecntor. 
The Dean had been his adversary, and had 
been sorely humiliated by him. There are 
tasks which duty sets vaguely, to be executed 
by some one ; but there are also instruments 
which, by executing them, err most grievously. 
From the disgrace of a recognized enemy, a 
noble mind averts its gaze, and casts the 
mantle of silence over his act. 

Mr. Moon's work, entitled 'Bad English,' 
consists of three distinct parts. I was some- 
what disappointed when, on receiving the 
long-promised volume, I found that the 
only new matter contained in it is the first 
part, which is a criticism of certain errors 
Lindley Murray's ' Glrammar.' The second 
and third parts are two series of criticisms, 
which, originally, were published in ' The 
Eound Table.' The first of these is directed 
chiefly against the Hon. George P. Marsh's 
* Notes on the New Edition of Webster's Dic- 
tionary,' and the second, against Mr. Edward 
S. Gould's work, entitled ' Good English.' 

On page 2 of 'Bad English,' Mr. Moon, 
preparing to criticize Lindley Murray's Ian- 



i 



AND ' BAD ENGLISH.' 195 

guage, says: — "Well, it is the pupil's turn 
now ; and notwithstanding that the old gram- 
marian was a personal friend of my family's^ 
I cannot resist the temptation to take up the 
pen against him," etc. Throughout the book, 
Mr. Moon uses the double genitive case, as in 
the preceding sentence, and in the following 
examples : — 

"This is an excellent rule of Lindley Murray's, (p. 
20.) 

" Of what use is the word in the following sentence of 
Mr. Marsh's?" (p. 81.) 

"Elsewhere Mr. Gould censures me for not exposing 
what he calls an error of Dean Alford's." (p. 126.) 

" Certain expressions of Dean Trench's and of Dean 
Alford's" etc. (p. 140.) 

"Concerning a sentence of Dean Trench's," etc. (p. 
146.) 

" In a sentence of Dean Trench's ; .... in a sentence 
of Mr. Gould's," etc. (p. 164.) 

" Of all the outrageously extravagant examples of this 
kind of error, I never met with one that equals this of Mr. 
Gould's." (p. 180.) 

On page 72, Mr. Moon says: "'0/' relates 
to source. . . . Mr. S. [a person who criticized 
Mr. Moon's language] seems to know of only 
one meaning to the word ' o/,' namely, that of 
possession. . . . '0/' has at least a dozen sig- 
nifications." True. But if " o/" has great 



196 'the dean's ENGLISH' 

latitude of signification, depending upon tlie 
idea to be expressed, wliy does Mr. Moon, by 
always employing in conjunction with "o/" 
tlie sign of the possessive case, always ensure 
that only possession shall be signified ? Why 
should we not say : " This is an excellent rule 
of Lindley Murray," which means that the 
source of the rule is Lindley Murray ; rather 
than say, as Mr. Moon does, this is an excellent 
rule of Lindley Murray's, which means that the 
rule is one of many rules laid down by Lindley 
Murray. A noun, if belonging more distinct- 
ively to that which originates, than to tha 
which possesses, should generally be put id 
the objective case; as, " A prescription of Dr3 
Smith;" "A native of Scotland." We sayj 
that, generally, it should be put in the ob- 
jective case: the rule has many exceptions. 
If, wishing to speak of Mr. Moon's work called 
' The Dean's English,' we say, — that book of 
Mr. Moon's, we exhibit a clear case of source^ 
indicated by the possessive case. We cannot, 
under any circumstances, say, — " That book 
of Mr. Moon." Yet we say, "the poems of 
Byron;" "the essays of Macaulay ;" the writ- 
ings of any one. Ambiguity in these three 



AND ' BAD e:tglish.' 197 

sentences does not exist, but it does exist in 
the sentence — " That book of Mr. Moon." On 
the other hand, possession must sometimes be 
exhibited by the employment of the objective 
case. If, instead of saying with Mr. Moon, ' ' The 
!*» old grammarian was a personal friend of my 
family's," we say, " The old grammarian was 
a personal friend of my family," we exhibit a 
clear case of p>ossession indicated by the ob- 
jective case. 

Let me, before proceeding, define what I 
mean by source, in contradistinction to pos- 
session. I choose, for the purpose of illus- 
tration, two examples in which the idea of 
source may not be so clear to the reader as is 
the idea of source contained in the example 
immediately following; — "A child of my 
friend." Ex. 1. "A likeness of Jones." Is 
Jones the source of the likeness, or is the 
artist the source of it ? Without Jones, the 
artist could have jDainted a picture, but not 
that picture ; therefore Jones is the source of 
the picture. The source of copies of a pic- 
ture is the first picture — the original. Ex. 2. 
"An anecdote of Dr. Johnson" — that is, a 
story about Dr. Johnson, not one told by 



198 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' 

liim. Is tlie narrator tlie source of the anec- 
dote ? An anecdote may have thousands of 
narrators, but the source of it is the thing 
described. 

In certain sentences, although we may, by 
employing the objective case to indicate 
source, succeed in our purpose, we should, to 
avoid the possible suggestion of an idea for- 
eign to the subject, employ in them the posses- 
sive case. Two such sentences occur among 
those last quoted from 'Bad English.' In 
them, Mr. Moon is right in employing the 
possessive case. In speaking of language, we 
should not say, — A sentence " of Mr. Grould," 
— " of Dean Trench,"—" of Mr. Marsh,"— or 
of any one else. We might not be misunder- 
stood ; but, by the use of the phrase, an idea 
foreign to our intention might be suggested. 
A judicial sentence, by a person, or on a person, 
is equally termed the sentence of that person. 

Lindley Murray, whom, even in criticizing 
Mr. Moon's language, I have no scruple in 
quoting, seeing that Mr. Moon makes occa- 
sional use of him as an authority, says : — 

" When tMs double genitive, as some grammarians 
term it, is not necessary to distinguish the sense, and 



AND ' BAD ENGLISH.' 199 

especially in a grave style, it is generally omitted. Ex- 
cept to prevent ambiguity, it seems to be allowable only 
in cases which, suppose the existence of a plurality of 
subjects of the same kind. In the expressions, ' A sub- 
ject of the emperor's;' 'A sentiment of my brother's;' 
more than one subject, and one sentiment, are supposed 
to belong to the possessor. But when this plurality is 
neither intimated, nor necessarily supposed, the double 
genitive, except as before mentioned, should not be used : 
as, 'This house of the governor is very commodious;' 
'The crown of the king was stolen;' 'That privilege of 
the scholar was never abused.' But after all that can 
be said for this double genitive, as it is termed, some 
grammarians think, that it would be better to avoid the 
use of it altogether, and to give the sentiment another 
form of expression." 

In some sentences, the double genitive must 
be employed to indicate possession, even if no 
idea of the plurality of subjects is involved in 
wbat is intended to be expressed. We can- 
not say, — "that dog of William," we must 
say that dog of William's ; — but we can say, — 
"that child of William,"— " that invention of 
William." By this illustration we perceive 
how stringent the reference of the objective 
case is to source^ and how stringent the refer- 
ence of the possessive case is to possession. 

When we come to consider the use of pro- 
nouns, under conditions analogous to those 



200 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' 

which we have been discussing, we find that, 
excepting " ?"^," the idiom of our language 
does not allow us to put them in the objective 
case. " An opinion of him," for instance, is 
not his opinion, but the opinion of some one 
else in regard to him. " A house of them" 
does not mean a house belonging to them; 
but means, if it means anything, a house full 
of them. "We saj, — "that child of his;" 
"that idea of hers;" — "that library of theirs;" 
— " that horse of mine." The objective cases 
of /, /le, s/ie, they^ preceded by " o/," being re- 
served for certain meanings, we are con- 
strained to employ in those pronouns the 
possessive case, in order to indicate the idea 
either of source or of possession. When, 
however, we consider our corresponding use 
of "z^," we find that we recur to the objective 
case. " n^ being used (if we except infants), 
only of non-sentient objects, there is no dan- 
ger of ambiguity's arising from our employ- 
ment of the word in the objective case only. 
In a true sense, an object to which ^^ if is 
applicable cannot be said to possess. We 
never wish to say, — "that opinion of its;" 
because " if cannot possess an opinion. On 



AND ' BAD ENGLISH.' 201 

the other hand, we are in no danger of being 
misunderstood if we say, — ''that opinion of 
it." The opinion, evidently, is not an emana- 
tion of the existence to which " ^Y" is applied, 
but that of some sentient being in regard to 
" ^7." So, although we do, for convenience' 
sake, in speaking of inanimate objects, use 
" iV in the possessive case ; as, for instance, 
speaking of a city, we say, — its fountains, its 
squares, its churches, etc. ; yet, whenever we 
can escape from this necessity, we use the ob- 
jective case, and say, "that beauty of it;" 
" those features of it." 

No precise rule for the guidance of our 
choice between the objective, and the posses- 
sive case, in nouns, can be given. This, how- 
ever, we have seen, that, generally, the double 
genitive case implies possession; and the 
objective case, source. In deciding, under 
given circumstances, which of the two forms 
to employ, we, individually, must rely on our 
discrimination. Sometimes it is immaterial 
which form shall be employed, the ideas of 
source and possession are so nicely balanced. 
An observation of Mr. Moon's (not here, of 
Mr. Moon; because that might be scrutiny . 
14 



202 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' 

made by anotlier person), in the sixth edition 
of 'The Dean's English' suggests to me a 
parallel one. He says : — " It is not the cir- 
cumstance that the pronoun is preceded by 
' than^'' that determines whether the pronoun 
is to be in the nominative or in the accusative 
case. It is the meaning which the writer 
intends to convey, that determines in which 
case the pronoun must be." So, likewise, in 
reference to the two forms of expression of 
which I have been speaking, I say : — It 
is not the circumstance that the preposition 
" q/"" precedes a noun, that determines whether 
the noun is to be in the possessive or in the 
objective case. It is the meaning which the 
writer intends to convey, that determines in 
which case the noun must be. 
Mr. Moon says: — 

" Let us now look at some of Lindley Murray's sentences 
in which, the adverb *6of^,' is used; and we shall find 
that he is at fault in those also." (p. 14.) 

Mr. Moon ought to have said, " in fault," 
instead of "a^ fault." To be " ai fault" is to 
be nonplussed. A schoolboy is " at fault" 
when he cannot answer a question asked from 
his lesson. He is " at fault" for a reply, when 



AND ' BAD ENGLISH.' 203 

his teacher has found him "m fault" for not 
knowing his lesson. 

On pages 17 and 50, Mr. Moon nses the 
. word '■'' firstly ^^'' and, on page 187, thus defends 
the use of the word: — 

*' I do not object to the occasional use of ^JirsV, as an 
adverb ; but, in sentences where it would be followed by 
* secondly,'' Uhirdly,^ etc., I think that the adverbial form 
Is preferable." 

However desirable it maj be to employ 
the word '^^ firstly'^ on certain occasions, the 
fact remains, that the employment of it on 
any occasion is not the best usage. 

Mr. Moon's sentence last quoted is faulty 
in construction. Mr. Moon does not mean to 
say, that he thinks^ in certain sentences^ that the 
adverbial form is preferable. He means to 
say that, he thinks that^ in certain sentences, 
the adverbial form is 'preferable. 

Mr. Moon says : — 

" On page 320 he [Lindley Murray] tells us that it is 
incorrect to say ; — ' A house and orchard;' and so it is ; 
because as there is, in the sentence, but one article, it is 
understood as referring to both nouns; and though we 
may say ; — '■A house,' we may not say; — * J. orchard.' " 
(pp. 30, 31.) 

The use of ^^may^^ in the sense of " can^^ is 



204 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' 

obsolete. It is proper to nse " ma?/" in the 
phrase, — '' and thougli we may say ;" because 
" may^^ there refers to permissibility. But it is 
not proper to use " ma?/" in the phrase, — " we 
may not say ;" because " ma?/" there refers to 
inability — what amounts to inability, on ac- 
count of the great impropriety of doing the 
thing forbidden. Sir Walter Scott, -writing 
before '•'- may^^ in the sense of '•'' can'^ became 
obsolete, frequently used the word in that 
sense. In Ivanhoe, in the interview between 
Kebecca and Eowena, occurs this passage : — 
" ' No, lady,' answered Eebecca, the same calm 
melancholy reigning in her soft voice and 
beautiful features — 'that may not be. I may 
not change the faith of my fathers like a gar- 
ment unsuited to the climate in which I seek 
to dwell, and unhappy, lady, I will not be.' " 
Mr. Moon, correcting Lindley Murray's 
phrase, — " Independently on the rest of the 
sentence," substitutes for it, — " Independently 
of the rest of the sentence." (p. 40.) Neither 
the one nor the other form is right. The 
wording should be, — ^'' Independent of the rest 
of the sentence." Webster, although full of 
vagaries, had some excellent ideas, and on the 



AND ' BAD ENGLISH.' • 205 

use of the adjective instead of the adverb, 
under the circumstances exhibited by the ex- 
ample adduced, he always strongly insisted. 
The best English usage shows that he was 
right ; although modern practice seems to be 
departing from the desirable form which he 
and others prescribed. If a single word is to 
be qualified, we should employ an adverb ; if, 
on the contrary, a clause is to be qualified, we 
should employ an adjective. Although he 
dwelt less upon the subject, Murray enter- 
tained in regard to it the same views as Web- 
ster held. 

Mr. Moon, criticising a passage from Lindley 
Murray's ' Grammar,' says : — " The concluding 
sentence is as follows : — * But most of all, in 
a single sentence, is required the strictest 
unity.' Why all this inversion ? Why not 
say ; — But the strictest unity is required in a 
single sentence ; or, But unity is required 
most of all in a single sentence ?" (p. 43.) 
Why not ? — because the change would make 
wretchedly weak what was remarkably forci- 
ble. Examine the whole passage. Murray 
says : — " In every composition, there is always 
some connecting principle among the partSe 



206 ■ ' THE dean's ENGLISH' 

Some one object must reign and be predomi- 
nant. But most of all, in a single sentence, 
is required tlie strictest unity." I bave 
notbing to do witb tbe question wbetber verbal 
improvements migbt, or migbt not, be made 
in tbese sentences. Tbe question before me * 
is as to tbe propriety of tbe inversion in tbe 
last sentence, and as to Mr. Moon's suggested 
cbanges' being improvements. I say decid- 
edly, tben, not only tbat Mr. Moon's cbanges 
are not improvements, but tbat tbe removal 
of tbe inversion in tbe last sentence would ruin 
tbe effect of tbe passage. In tbe tbree sen- 
tences combined in tbeir present order, tbere 
is a regular crescendo. In every composition, 
tbere is a connecting principle . . . one object 
must reign . . . but, most of all, in a single 
sentence, is required tbe strictest unity. 

Murray baving written : — " Tbe order in 
wbicb the two last words are placed, etc." Mr. 
Moon corrects bim by interpolating, " the last 
two^ (p. 45.) I am aware tbat, in any eitber 
pbysical or mental arrangement, two tbings 
cannot eacb be last. But I know anotber 
tbing, witbout considering wbicb I cannot, in 
any given case, properly decide wbetber to 



AND ' BAD ENGLISH.' 207 

give preference to " the last two^^ or to '' the two 
lasty It is, that the expressions, " the last two^''^ 
and " the two lasf,^^ are all that we have to en- 
able us to distinguish between two independent 
ideas. If we say, — " the last two,^^ we, by 
implication, make stringent reference to ''the 
first twOj''^ which do not always exist, or, if 
they do exist, which we often have no inten- 
tion to refer to ; and, in consequence, we often 
mislead as to our meaning. It is therefore 
preferable, whenever the absolute position of 
only two things is to be mentioned, to speak 
of them, as the case may be, as ^Uhe two first ^^^ 
or " ^/le two lastf^ but whenever the relative 
position of four things, considered as two 
pairs, each pair either first or last, is to be 
mentioned, to speak of them as ''^ the first two^\ 
and " tlie last twoP 

Mr. Moon concludes his criticism of errors 
• in ' Murray's Grammar,' by remarking, that 
"Almost every kind of fault in composition 
may be found in Lindley Murray's own 
writings ; and yet he is not more incorrect in 
his language, than are ninety-nine men out of 
every hundred. He knew what was right ; 
but his practice was strangely at variance 
with his precepts." 



208 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' 

Is not this judgment more severe tlian that 
whicli is warranted by the. facts of the case ? 
Lindley Murray, compared with verbal-critics, 
is perhaps not more correct in his language 
than are ninety-nine men of- every hundred ; 
compared with mere literary men, perhaps 
not more correct than are the best of them. 
But, compared with the educated, .neither 
verbal- critics nor mere literary men, he is 
more correct than are thousands; and, com- 
pared with the mass of people, more correct 
than are millions. 

Mr. Moon says : — 

"His words [a certain clergyman's] were the procla- 
mation of a proposal." (p. 52.) [Review of the Hon. 
George P. Marsh's ' Notes on the New Edition of Webster's 
Dictionary.'] 

I can conceive the propriety of this ex- 
pression, under the circumstances that one 
person proclaims the proposal of another ; or 
even under those in which the proposal, being 
fixed in verbal form, as, for instance, in a 
quack's advertisement of a panacea, the pro- 
clamation is an independent act, consisting 
merely of the constant repetition of the same 
set terms. But neither these circumstances, 



AND ' BAD ENGLISH.' 209 

nor similar ones, are represented by the pas- 
sage from which the sentence above-quoted is 
taken ; and consequently, the sentence is pleo- 
nastic ; a proposal being, in itself, a procla- 
mation of intention. 
Mr. Moon says : — 

One of the most frequently recurring errors in Mr. 
Marsh's * Notes' is," etc. (p. 63.) 

Here again is a pleonastic expression. "i?e- 
curring''' means " occurring againj'' at least 
once ; and, generally, it is employed to indi- 
cate many repetitions of like occurrence. Mr. 
Moon should therefore have written : — " One 
of the most frequently occurring errors in Mr. 
Marsh's ' Notes ;' or else, — " One of the most 
recurring errors," etc. 

Mr. Moon, in criticising the language of a 
person who signed himself S., and who con- 
stituted himself Mr. Marsh's champion, quotes 
from him, as follows : — 

" Mr. Marsh is, of course, quite able to carry on a con- 
test with Mr. Moon triumphantly, if he would he at the 
trouble to do it." (p. 68.) 

In his remarks on this passage, Mr. Moon 
makes several fair strictures; but, when he 
says, — " How can Mr. Marsh's ability to carry 



2 10 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' 

on a contest be dependent on his willV\ he 
indulges in a specious argument. We say, — 
" He will if lie can ;" — " He would if he could ;^^ 
— and conversely, we say, — " He can if he 
ivillf^ — ''he could if he wouldP Although 
mankind admit that, in the abstract, ahiliiy* 
does not depend upon will ; yet, as a part of 
their daily experience, they recognize the fact, 
that, as they are constituted, the action of the 
will may be in abeyance. Therefore, as they 
can think that a person " can if he ^^•^7^," or 
" could if he would^'' they have incorporated in 
language an expression corresponding to the 
idea. 

Mr. Moon says that 

" It is not tintil we are satisfied that Mr. Marsh doe3 
not mean ; — ' belonging to the vocabulary of our moral 
and intellectual nature by description,' that we perceive 
that the last two words are misplaced, and that what is 
meant is, that there is," etc. (pp. 77, 78.) 

It would have been much better to say : — . 
^Hliat we perceive the last two pt^o last\ words 
to he misplaced, and the meaning to he^ that 
there is," etc. 

Mr. Moon, contrasting that usage which, he 
says, is the best, with that which, he says, had 



AND ' BAD ENGLISH.' 211 

passed away, makes the following observa- 
tion: — 

"But DOW,. the "best writers, when speaking of inani- 
mate objects, use '■of which' instead of ^ whose;' and I am 
surprised to find Mr. Marsh saying," etc. (p. 80.) 

Doubtless, Mr. Moon's reading covers very 
extensive fields of literature, but bis conclu- 
sion here is not that which I believe to be 
in accordance with fact. Harrison says: — 
*' Custom has, however, authorized the use of 
** whose'"' when we speak of men, brutes, or 
inanimate things." Dr. Campbell, in speaking 
on the same subject, says: — "Some gramma- 
rians remonstrate. But it ought to be remem- 
bered, that use well established must give law 
to grammar, and not grammar to use. Nor 
is this acceptation of the word ' ivliose' of 
recent introduction into the language. It 
occurs even in Shakspeare, and almost uni- 
formly in authors of any character since his 
time. Neither does there appear to be any 
inconvenience arising from this usage. The 
connection with the antecedent is commonly 
so close as to remove all possible ambiguity. 
If, however, in any instance, the application 
should appear ambiguous ; in that instance, 



212 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' 

witHout question, tlie periphrasis ougTit to be 
preferred. But the term thus applied to 
things could not be considered as improper 
any longer than it was by general use pecu- 
liarly appropriated to persons, and, therefore, 
considered merely as an inflection of the pro- 
noun ' who.'' Now that cannot be affirmed to 
be the case at present." 

Mr. Moon, who, as his writings prove,, re- 
gards Dr. Campbell as high authority in 
English ; who must know what wide differ- 
ence of opinion exists in reference to the ques- 
tion at issue ; and who, in fine, must at least 
occasionally experience the difficulty, not to 
say, impossibility, of avoiding the use of 
"t(;/iose" as the possessive case of "^^/^^■c^," 
was rash to make the unqualified assertion 
which I quote. The state of the case, as it 
presents itself to me, is, that good usage 
regards the application of " of which'''' to in- 
animate things, as generally preferable to the 
application of " whose^'' to them ; but that, 
farther than expressing this general prefer 
ence, good usage does not go. 

"The fruit 
Of that forbidden tree, whose mortal taste 
Brought," etc. 



AND 'BAD ENGLISH.' 213 

The fact that everybody knows of the ex- 
istence of ''poetic license" is insufficient to 
account for the fact that everybody reads the 
above lines, without having the attention in 
the slightest degree arrested by the presence 
of the word " whose J^ 

Mr. Moon says : — 

" Tliere is a specious fallacy here wliicli must be ex- 
posed." (p. 114.) [Criticism of Mr. S.'s language.] 

Here is an egregious pleonasm. The very 
nature of a fallacy is to be specious. A fallacy 
is a sophistical argument couched in a few 
words. The speciousness of one argument 
may be either greater or less than that of 
another argument, but speciousness in an 
argument is essential to constituting it a 
fallacy. Hence, although we can say, — " This 
is a more specious fallacy than any that I ever 
heard ;" we cannot say, — " There is a specious 
fallacy here which must be exposed." 

Mr. Moon, referring to Mr. Edward S. Gould, 
says: — 

" He might, perhaps, think that I were jesting if I asked 
him whether he meant a little deal, or a great deal." 
(pp. 143, 144.) 

^^MighV belongs to a past tense; and al» 



214 *THE dean's exglish' 

tliougli it is often employed to denote present 
time, it can never be employed to denote future 
time. For example, we cannot say : — " Man 

1 labors that he might obtain the means of sub- 
sistence, and that he might add to the enjoy- 
ments of life." We must say : — '' Man labors 
that he may obtain the means of subsistence, 
and that he may add to the enjoyments of life." 
"J-sZ^ec?," also, belongs to a past tense. We 
cannot say : — " If I ashed you to go with me, 
would you consent?" We must say; — "If I 
(should) ask to go with me, would you con- 
sent?" It would be absurd to say : — " What 
luoidd you do, if you wenty (go). 

Mr. Moon, although his use of" might,^^ and 
of " asJced,^^ does not show it, evidently in- 
tends to speak of the future, throughout the 
sentence; for he uses the words, "that I were 

^jesting ;" which include the imperfect tense of 
the subjunctive mood, and suggest the idea 
of futurity. Let us, for his sake, suppose that 
he employs "mz'^/z^" to represent present time. 
If we should suppose that he employs it to 
represent past time, the supposition would be 
only the worse for him. Eeferring to Mr. 
Gould, he says :- — " He might, perhaps, think 



i 



AND 'BAD ENGLISH.' 215 

[that is, at present], that I were jesting [an oc- 
currence which had not taken place], if I asked 
him [a contingent occurrence relating to the 
past], whether he meant a little deal, or a great 

tdeal." If the sentence must throughout express 
the idea of futurity, it should be framed thus : — 
"He may, perhaps, think [future], that I were 
jesting [future], if I should ask him [future], 
whether he meant a little deal, or a great 
deal." But that is not good English. How 
can a person think that I " were jesting ?" A 
person ^'- can think" thatl"a?72 jesting;" or 
''''may think" that I " am (or was) jesting;" or 
might think that I am (or luas) jesting; or 
" would think" that I loas jesting. 

The expression of the idea of futurity, 
throughout the sentence, is not warranted 
by the circumstances of the case. Mr. Moon 
^was writing, in London, an article which he 
knew would not for many days meet the 
eye of Mr. Grould. Why, therefore, did he 
speak of the immediate effect of a prospec- 

ttive remark of his to Mr. Grould ? Mr, 
Gould could not have experienced the effect 
of the remark before it had been made. The 
remark was in fact written in Mr. Moon's 



216 'the dean's ENGLISH' 

article. The idea of futurity, except as far 
as Mr. Gould's reading the remark was con- 
cerned, is inadmissible in the sentence. 

Upon the determination of the question, 
whether we ought to regard the making of the j 
jest, and the effect of the jest, as nearly coinci- 
dent in time, or ought to regard them as sepa- 
rated by a considerable interval of time, must 
depend the particular form of the sentence. 
First, I shall frame a sentence which shall re- 
cognize the circumstance that an ocean inter- 
vened between Mr. Moon and Mr. Gould ; and, 
secondly, another sentence, in which I shall 
ignore that circumstance. 

1. " He may, perhaps, think [future], that I 
was jesting [past], if I should ask him [future], 
whether he meant a little deal, or a great 
deal." By inversion of the sentence, the re- 
lation of time to be expressed is rendered 
even more apparent. Here it is inverted : — 
"If I should ask him [future — immediate 
future], whether he meant a little deal, or 
great deal, he may, perhaps, think [future — - 
that is, when my words reach him in New 
York], that I was jesting," [past — that is, 
when I wrote the jest in London]. 



AXD 'BAD ENGLISH.' 217 

2. " He may, perhaps, think that I am jest- 
ing if I should ask him whether he meant a 
little deal, or a great deal." That is, "If I 
should ask him [now], whether he meant a 
little deal, or a great deal, he may, perhaps, 
think [now], that I am jesting" [now]. 

In order clearly to impress on the reader's 
mind the idea of subjunctivity (that is, future 
contingency), in places where the words used 
ought to express it, I have introduced the 
word "sAoiiZc/," wherever, if it is not ex- 
pressed, grammatically it is understood. " If 
I ask," equally with " if he ask," belongs to 
the subjunctive mood. But as, in the first 
*' as^," there is no change of termination in 
changing from the indicative to the sub- 
junctive mood, whereas, there is, in the case 
of the second "as^;" the subjunctivity of the 
first is not so perceptible as that of the second. 
Therefore I have always written, — ^^ii I should 
ask," just as, if I had had occasion to do it, I 
could have written, " if Ae should ask," instead 
of, " if he askr 

Besides those exhibited, several other com- 
binations of tenses, which would include the 
idea to be expressed, might be devised. I 
15 



218 ' THE dean's ENGLISH* 

might say, instead of, — " if I should ask" — '' if 
I were to ask." I might say, instead of, — " he 
may, perhaps, think" — " he would, perhaps, 
think," etc. etc. 

It is relevant to what has been said, to 
add a few remarks on the imperfect tense of 
the subjunctive mood of the verb TO BE. 
Much confusion exists in the minds of many 
persons, with regard to the use of this tense. 
Lindley Murray does not seem fully to have 
understood its character; for, after having 
dwelt throughout several pages of his ' Gram- 
mar,' on the necessity for the concurrence of 
contingency and futurity, in constituting the 
subjunctive mood of all verbs, he added, " ex- 
cept the imperfect of the verb to he, which, in 
cases denoting contingency, is varied in all the 
persons of the singular number." The im- 
perfect of the verb to be does, it is true, some- 
times denote only contingency ; as, " if it were 
not so, I would not have made the statement." 
A contingency which relates, not to future 
occurrence, but which exists only in the 
speaker's mind, in regard to an occurrence 
which he concedes either to have, or not to 
have, taken place, is clearly indicative in its 



I 



AND 'bad ENGLISH.' 219 

mental form. Therefore, indicative conditions 
being implied by the circumstances involved 
in the illustration adduced, and the phrases, 
, " if it is not so,^^ and " if it was not so^^^ not 
being applicable to the idea to be expressed, 
we clearly perceive, that as the expression, 
" if it were not so^^^ cannot, in the context, re- 
late to the future^ it must express contingency 
as to the present. Generally, however, the im- 
perfect subjunctive of the verb to be combines 
a present, with a future-contingent, signifi- 
cance; as, "He is not here, but if he were to 
come ;" " Were you to go^ you certainly would 
he much pleased." Even in such expressions 
as, — " If I were you, I would go," the idea 
both of the present and of the future is in- 
volved. ^'-IflwerejovC implies, first of all, 
that I am not you ; and then, that if I, ceasing 
to be myself, could be you, I would either be 
or do something — in this case, "would go." 

Perhaps there is no disputed point in our 
language, about which exists so great a diverg- 
ence of opinion, as that in relation to the 
government of the possessive case by the 
present participle. Mr. Moon takes that 
which, as well as I can perceive, is the weaker 



220 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' 

side of the question. Speaking of a sentence 
of his, which I shall presently quote, he says: 
"Had I to rewrite the sentence, which is at 
present under consideration, I should slightly 
alter the wording, and omit the sign of the 
possessive case before the present participle ; 
.... for I agree with the author of ' The 
Grammar of English Grammars', that it is gen- 
erally better to avoid that construction." 
(p. 174.) This is the sentence to which Mr. 
Moon refers : — 

*' We might as well speak of the breadth of a man's 
sympathies' being as great as the breadth of the Missis- 
sippi ; or the depth of a woman's affections' being as great 
as the depth of the Atlantic ; as speak of a difference of 
opinions' being comparable to the difference between cer- 
tain points of the compass." (p. 173.) 

I freely admit that the preceding sentence 
has a certain awkward appearance. It arises 
from the circumstance that two pairs of words, 
each Avord of those pairs having the sign of 
the possessive case, follow each other in close 
succession — "man's sympathies' being" — • 
" woman's affections' being." However, upon 
a possible construction, whether agreeable or 
disagreeable to the eye, grammatical propriety 
does not depend. Besides, Mr. Moon's sen- 



I 



AND ' BAD ENGLISH.' 221 

tence is not a fair example to adduce for the 
discussion of the question at issue ; yet he, 
after exhibiting that sentence, and no other, 
remarks that it is generally better to avoid 
the construction of the possessive case with 
the participle. Naturally, the general reader 
receives a false impression on the subject. 

Dr. Campbell concludes his argument against 
Dr. Lowth's views on this subject, by remark- 
ing: — "I am of opinion, therefore, upon the 
whole, that as the idiom in question is analo- 
gical, supported by good use, and sometimes 
very expedient, it ought not to be entirely 
reprobated." 

Mr. Moon, it should be observed, does not 
reprobate the idiom. Indeed, on pages 169 and 
170, of 'Bad English,' he says: — "There are 
passages in ' The Dean's English' which I had 
considered would be better with the noun in 
the possessive case ; and, in the present Eng- 
lish edition of the work, they stand so." Yet, 
immediately afterwards, he quotes with entire 
approval Goold Brown's opinion that, "the 
kitchen too now begins to give dreadful note 
of preparation, .... from the shopmaidCs 
chopping force-meat, the aj^j^r entice! s cleaning 



222 'THE dean's ENGLISH' 

knives, and the journeyman's Teceivrng a prac- 
tical lesson in the art of waiting at table," 
should be, "the kitchen too now begins to 
give dreadful note of preparation, .... from 
the shopmaid chopping force-meat, the appren- 
tice cleaning knives, and the journeyman re- 
ceiving a practical lesson in the art of waiting 
at table." Now, if there can be a clear case 
for the employment of the participle in its 
gerundive character, it is this case. "The 
dreadful note of preparation" was not from 
the " shopmaid chopping." If she had called 
lustily to her fellow-servants to hurry, the 
dreadful note of preparation might be said to 
have come from the '-^shopmaid chopping;" but 
it was the "shopmaid's chopping^'' her chop- 
ping, that formed part of the dreadful note of 
preparation. I will not weary the reader by 
applying the same reasoning to the other 
clauses of the sentence quoted. Any one must 
see at a glance that it is applicable. 

In ' The American Monthly Magazine and 
Critical Review,' of May, 1818, — a magazine 
formerly published in New York, — is an arti- 
cle from which I extract the following exam- 
ples illustrating the incorrectness of not em- 



AXD ' BAD ENGLISH.' 223 

ploying the possessive case, in certain con- 
structions. 

" The possession of the goods was altered hy the owner 
taking them into his own custody." [Marshall on Insu- 
rance.] 

" In consequence of the King of Prussia invading 
Saxony and Bohemia, the Aulic Council voted his con- 
duct to be a breach of the public peace." [Edinburgh 
Encyclopedia.] 

" The secretary wearing a sword and uniform was a cir- 
cumstance which added greatly to his natural awkward- 
ness." [Notices of Mr. Hume.] 

" Many valuable lives are lost by reason of studious 
men indulging too much in sedentary habits." [Anon.] 

The writer of the article, after inveighing 
against the growing practice of omitting the 
sign of possessive case in nouns preceding 
present participles, in such sentences as the 
preceding, remarks, that ** if any one can doubt 
the justness of these strictures, he may bring 
them to a very simple and decisive test, by 
substituting pronouns for nouns, in each of 
the passages cited. Thus : ' The possession 
of one's goods is altered bv him taking them 
into his own custody.' ' The Aulic Council 
voted the king's conduct to be a breach of 
the public peace, in consequence of him invad- 
ing Saxony,' etc. ^He wearing a sword and 



224 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' 

uniform was a circumstance wliicli added to 
his natural awkwardness.' ' Tlie lives of 
many studious men are lost, by reason of them 
indulging,' etc. This, it will readily be agreed 
by every reader, is absolutely intolerable ; 
and yet it does not at all surpass, in grossness 
of inaccuracy, any one of the original passages 
cited." 

The London ' Athenaeum,' of January 23d, 
says of Mr. Moon : — " He seems to have little 
knowledge of the philology and early condi- 
tion of our language, otherwise he would 
hardly have confounded together the present 
participle and the gerund or verbal noun, 
which, though now identical in form, are very 
different in origin and force." I do not, by 
quoting this passage, intend to be understood 
as assenting to the opinion expressed in it. 
I do not concur in opinion Avith ' The Athe- 
naeum,' even to the extent of thinking that 
Mr. Moon confounds the participle with the 
gerund. I think that Mr. Moon clearly 
shows that he understands the difference be- 
tween them. What I consider remiss in Mr. 
Moon is, that, after citing an authority in 
favour of his" views, he dismissed the question 



AXD ' BAD EN-QLISH.' 225 

with tlie mere expression of his opinion, that 
the construction of which he had been speak- 
ing should generally be avoided. I quote the 
opinion of ' The Athenaeum,' in order to show 
that, in England, there is at least one high 
authority on that side of the question which 
I have been advocating, and that, there, even 
Mr. Moon's opinions are not considered incon- 
trovertible. 

For my part, I stronglj^ suspect that, in the 
construction which I have been discussing, 
convenience formerly induced many printers 
to omit the sign of the possessive case, and 
that hence, the majority of the people, having 
become habituated to 'its absence in print, re- 
linquished in oral speech the corresponding 
sound. I think that the same motive is now 
inducing printers to drop the apostrophic "s," 
rightfully belonging to proper names ending 
with "5," when they are in the possessive case ; 
and I am confirmed in my impression, by 
observing that printers of just the class 
which one might expect would be influenced 
by convenience, to violate any linguistic pro- 
priety, are the very ones engaged in the inno- 
Ivation. Examination of books printed in 



226 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' 

olden times will prove that tlie sign of tlie 
possessive case was then constantly used in 
nouns preceding participles, and that the apos- 
trophic "5" wasr never omitted in the posses- 
sive case of proper names ending with "s." 
If these are facts in relation to former usage 
in books, thej do not, it is true, establish the 
correctness of the view that the linguistic 
change which has taken place proceeded from 
books, for it may have proceeded from the 
people, and been reflected by books ; but it 
establishes the fact that, in olden times, the 
usage, in the particulars which I have specified 
as correct, was common both to oral and to 
written speech. 

Mr. Moon does not make the proper distinc- 
tion between the exclamation " 0," the sense of 
which may pervade a whole sentence, and the 
mere interjection " OA," the sense of which is 
dependent upon the context. This distinction 
is a decidedly modern usage, and an admirable - 
one. The " (9" communicates meaning to the 
words associated with it ; the " Oh" receives 
meaning from the words associated with it. 
The exclamation " 0," belongs to a direct ad- 
dress ; as, " grave, where is thy victory I 



AND ' BAD E^s-QLISH.' 227 

death, where is thy sting !" In the following 
passage from ' Paradise Lost,' the interjection 
"OA" is not applied to any particular word, nor 
to any particular clause, nor to the whole pas- 
sage, and therefore it should be written " OA;" 
although in some editions of ' Paradise Lost' 
it is not so written. 

" Oh unexpected stroke, worse than of death 1 
Must I thus leave thee, Paradise I thus leave 
Thee, native soil !".... 

Sometimes there arises a case which is in- 
termediate in relation to the direct address 
and the mere interjection ; as in the following 
passage from ' Henry Y .' 

" 0, for a Muse of fire, that would descend 
The hrightest heaven of invention ; 
A kingdom for a stage, princes to act, 
And monarchs to behold the swelling scene!'* 

"No one can doubt, however, that this is an 
aspiration, almost an invocation of some mys- 
terious power,- and that, if the distinction which 
I have drawn is a correct one, the passage 
should be preceded by "0." 

Sometimes the ^7iote of exclamatio7i'' is plsLced 
immediately after the word ^^Ohf^ as, "Oh! 
he has fallen." Sometimes it is placed at the 



228 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' 

end of a plirase beginning with ^^Oh f as, Oli, 
yon don't tell me so! But the ''note of excla- 
mation^ should never be placed immediatelj 
after the word "0," because the sense of "0" 
pervades one or more of the words following it. 

Mr. Moon is therefore right, where, on 
page 72, he says, — " fie !", because there the 
name of a person is understood ; but wrong, 
where, on page 164, he says, — " that is quite 
another thing!" because, there, "0" stands for 
a mere ejaculation. 

On page 62, Mr. Moon says: — "In Mr. 
Marsh's next sentence there should be a 
comma after the word ' language ;' and then 
Ave should not read of — ' A word-book of a 
living language not extending beyond a single 
volume.' " Mr. Moon sometimes over-punc- 
tuates. An instance of his doing so may be 
found on page 65, as follows : — 

" An exception wliich. Mr. MarsTi has, evidently, over- 
looked." 

Why are we called upon to make a mental 
pause at the adverb " evidently ^^^ as though it 
had great significance ? If Mr. Moon had in- 
tended it to be emphatic, he would have placed 
it after " wliich,^^ and then he ouo;ht to have 



I 



AND ' BAD ENGLISH.' 229 

set it off with commas ; thus, — " An exception 
wMcli, evidently, Mr. Marsh has overlooked." 
That, however, was not Mr. Moon's intention. 
The adverb stands unemphatically, as far as 
its position is concerned, and coalesces with 
^' the clause in which it is placed. On page 76, 
Mr. Moon says : — " are nnable to express their 
meaning, with clearness and accuracy." Is it 
possible that punctuation must be as close as 
it is in that sentence, in order to prevent 
people from understanding it to read, — "to 
express their . . . meaning with clearness and 
accuracy ;" instead of, " to express . . . with 
clearness and accuracy . . . their meaning" 
Suppose that, for the words " their meaning^'' 
we substitute the word, " themselves ^ Should 
we then be obliged to write, — " are unable 
to express themselves, with clearness and ac- 
curacy" ? 

The reader may ask, "What are Mr. Moon's 
general merits as a writer ? Wot having read 
his lately published poem, 'Elijah the Pro- 
phet,' I am not prepared to speak of Mr. Moon, 
except as a prose writer, and of him, even in 
that capacity, I cannot speak categorically^ A 



230 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' 

writer treating of verbal-criticism labours 
ander a great disadvantage. The range of ex- 
pression in language is as wide as the range of 
thought, but is restricted more or less by the 
natural bounds of every subject, perhaps by 
none more than by those of a treatise on ver- 
bal-criticism. Besides, even within the bounds 
of verbal-criticism, a writer is sometimes ob- 
liged to discard a felicitous expression, rather 
than, by employing it, excite comment from a 
minority of educated people, however small, 
who deny its accuracy. 

A verbal- critic may be either a much supe- 
rior, or a much inferior, writer to what he 
seems to be if judged by his essays on verbal 
criticism. His subject limits perception of 
his merits, as well as of his demerits, as a 
writer. He may exhibit all the range possi- 
ble within the bounds of his subject, and yet 
he cannot prove himself to be more than a 
correct writer, which is very far from being 
an able or a great writer. 

Yerbal-criticism instructs in the mechanism 
of language, how to use it effectively. No 
one who is competent to sit in judgment on 
the question, would for a moment hesitate to 



AND 'bad ENGLISH.' 231 

decide that, other things being equal, the man 
who best understands the mechanism of lan- 
guage, will wield it to the best advantage. In 
fact, to say so, is to utter a truism of which 
one might well be ashamed, were it not that, 
truism as it is, it is often disputed. But the 
study of language does not endow a man with 
plenitude of power in expression ; it merely 
improves, and enables him to exercise to the 
fullest extent, the faculty with which he was 
endowed by nature. Great prose-writing is 
trained intellectual expression. 

Mr. Moon proves himself to be, as far as 
the limits of his subject admit, an admirable 
writer. He has done yeoman's service in the 
field of verbal-criticism. In that field he is 
probably unsurpassed. If he has a fault, it is 
that he sometimes indulges in hypercriticism. 
This is a fault into which masters in the art 
of verbal-criticism are apt to fall, and, there- 
fore, one against which every student of the 
art should be sedulously on his guard. Mr. 
Moon's language is perspicuous and pure, and 
his style easy, if not flowing. 

Let me say what I think that I have ac- 
complished. I have merely justified anew 



282 ' THE dean's ENGLISH' 

the concl-usion which, experience furnishes — . 
that it is not possible to write with absolute 
correctness. Mr. Moon, owing to the fact of 
his great precision as a writer, affords only a 
more striking illustration of that which has 
been proved over and over again. 

If any one supposes that he shall ever be 
able to write perfectly correct English, let 
him disabuse his mind of the idea. The 
shallow critic is the only person who is sure 
that he can reach perfection in the art. He 
does not, of course, always find an error in 
the composition of another person, when he 
thinks that he detects one; but when he does, 
he assumes that whatever else in it passed 
his inspection unchallenged, is correct; and 
complacently takes to himself credit for acu- 
men and skill which he does not possess. 
It needs no argument to prove, that what 
he tacitly approves, is neither necessarily 
right, nor necessarily within his power to 
execute as well. Only when, by study, he 
has ceased to be his former self, does he 
realize what men have found to be true of the 
ascent to every kind of knowledge — that 
" hills peep o'er hills and Alps on Alps arise," 



k 



AND ' BAD ENGLISH.' 233 

and forever bound the intellectual horizon. 
He, then, risen into brighter day, rejects as 
fallacious the tests which he once regarded as 
final ; the broader his view, the less is he 
inclined to doubt that more may lie beyond. 
Strange it is, at the first glance, that in the 
art of using language, the most difficult of all 
arts, the plastic art of the intellect, by which, 
out of airy nothing, every idea from the 
meanest to the noblest can be presented, men 
are apt to hold in too high estimation their 
skill in criticism and in performance! Yet 
on a slight examination of the subject, the 
strangeness vanishes. In this art, but not in 
any other, the veriest simpleton who speaks 
or writes, daily uses the same instruments, 
and the same materials, that are at the dispo- 
sal of the greatest genius. Each trifier knows, 
as he daily passes off his uncouth little images 
of ideas, that his modelling is recognized. 
But he never knows that he cannot produce, 
nor evert appreciate, linguistic forms of 
beauty; because he never knows that he lives 
in the great Studio of Nature, and that what 
he practises is not with him, but is with some 
of his fellow-men, an art. 
16 



THE END. 



I 



A LIST OF SOME OF THE MOST VULGAR 
PEONUNCIATIONS.* 



Word. 
Again, 

Apparent, 

Asparagus, 
Arab, 



False Pronunciatioai. True Pronunciation. 



Ag-gane', 
f Ap-pali'rent, 
[ Ap-pere'rent, 

As-pali'ro-gras, 

Spah'ro-gras, 

Gras, 

A'rab, 



Boil, (small abscess) Bile, 
Boil, (to boil) Bile, 



Ag-gen'. 
> Ap-pare'rent. 

As-pali'ra-gus. 

Ali'rab. 

Boyl. 
Boyl. 



■^ No orthoepic notation is complete without indicating 
both the primary and the secondary accent of words, 
and without appropriating certain arbitrary signs to 
letters, of which, when so marked, the exact sound, the 
distinctness, indistinctness, or silence, is indicated by 
their reference to well-known words. The author has at- 
tempted to give, by indicating the primary accent only, 
by the insertion of the hyphen, and by the use of the 
generally discarded phonetic spelling, a tolerably correct 
pronunciation of each word in this vocabulary. As this 
book is not intended for foreigners, and the words in the 
vocabulary are in common use wherever English is spoken, 
he believes the plan which he has pursued to be the best 
for the occasion. A regular system of notation would not 
here be read and applied, and if he used it, his pre- 
cision would defeat its own object. Imperfectly as, from 
the imperfection of the mode adopted, the pronunciation 
may here be construed, the resulting sounds cannot ap- 
proach the low pronunciation of the words, which, 
although marked by the same imperfect notation, are 
recognizable in all their hideousness. 
235 



236 



VULGAR PRONUNCIATIONS. 



Carriage, 

Catcli, 

Chair, 

China, 

Cincinnati, 

Column, 

Contrary, 

Courier, 

Cover, 

Cupola, 



Bel-lo'ne, 

KeVridge, 

Ketch, 

Cheer, 

Chay'ne, 

Sin-sin-nat'ah, 

Kol'yoom, 

Kon-tray're, 

Kur're-er, 

Kiv'er, 

Kupe'o-lo, 



Bo-lo'nah. 

Kah'ridge. 

Katch. 

Chare. 

Chi'nah. 

Sin-sin-nat'e. 

Korum. 

Kont'rah-re. 

Koo're-er.' 

Kuv'er. 

Kupe'o-lah. 



Dagguerreotype, Dag-geh're-o-tipe, Daggeh'ro-tipe. 

TlonrlT»iTpr T^oT>'^OT» Tion'rlT'nT 



Deaf, 

Decrepit, 

Disappointed, 

Drowned, 

Duty, 

Engine, 

Extempore, 

Favourite, 

February, 

Figure, 
Finale, 
Forward, 
Fragile, 

Girard, 



Deef, 

Dee-crep'id, 

Dis-ap-pine'ted, 

Drown'ded, 

Doo'ty, Ju'ty, 

Enj'ine, 

Ex-tem'pore, 

Fave'o-rite, 
C Feb'u-erry, 
< Feb'u-werry, 
(^ Feb'oo-erry, [ 

Fig'ger, 

Fine-ale', 

Fow'ward, 

Fraj'-ile, 

Jir-rad', 



Def. 

Dee-crep'it. 

Dis-ap-point'ed. 

Drownd. 

Du'te* 

Enj'in. 

Ex-tem'po-re. 

Fave'o-rit. 

■ Feb'ru-erry. 

Fig'yur. 
Fine-al'le. 
For'ward. 
Fraj'il. 

Jir-rard'. 



* For the pronunciaiion of words like those marked 
with a star, see the remarks at the end of the list. 



VULGAR PRONUNCIATIONS. 



237 



0-rievous, 
Gum Arabic, 
Guardian, 


Greev'yus, Gree'vus. 
Gum Ah-ray'bic, Gum Ah'rab-ic. 
Gar-deen', Gard'e-an. 


Hoist, 
Height, 


Hyst, 

Hite-th, 


Hoyst. 
Hite. 


Idea, 

Individual, 

Italian, 


Ide'yah, I-de'ah. 
In-div-vid'oo-al, In-div-vid'u-al.* 
I-tal'yan, It-taVyan. 


Kettle, 

Keg, 

Kept, 


Kittle, 

Kag, 

Kep, 


Kettle. 

Keg. 

Kept. 


Lilac, 
Lineaments, 


La/lok, 
Lin'ne-ments, 


Li'lak. 
Lin'ne-a-ments. 


Mantua, 


Man'cher, 


Man'chu-ah. 


Mercantile, 


1 Mer'can-tle, 
Mer'can-teel, 


Mer'can-til. 
Mer'can-tile. 


Memoir, 
Militia, 


Mem'more, 
Mil-lish'e, 


MemVahr. 
Mil-lish'ah. 


Mischievous, 


f Mis-cheVus, 
\ Mis-che've-us, 


■ Mis'chiv-us 


Missouri, 
Mosquitoes, 


Mis-soor'ah, 
Mus-keet'ers, 


Mis-soo're. 
Mus-keet'oze. 


Muskmelon, 


C Mus'mel-un, 
( Mush'mel-un, 


!■ Musk'mel-un. 


Mussulmans, 
Mustache, 


Mus'sul-men, 
Mus'tatch, 


Mus'sul-mans. 
Mus-tash'. 


New Orleans, 

News, 


New Or-leens' 
Nooz, 


, New Orl'yans. 
Nuze. 


Opponent, 


Op'o-nent, 


Op-pone'ent. 



238 



VULGAR P?tONUl\CIATIONS. 



Pattern, 
Pantomime, 
Philadelphia, 
Piazza, 


Pat'ron, 
Pant'o-min 3, 
Eil-lah-del'fe, 
Pi-az'zah, 


Pat'ern. 
Pant'o-mime. 
Fil-lah-del'fe-ah, 
Pee-az'zah. 


Poem, 


r Poy'em, 
< Pome, 
(Porm, 


[ Po'em 


Poet, 


r Poy'et, 
] Po:e, 
(Port, 


- Po'et. 

1 


Poetry, 


( Po/tre, 
] Po'tre, 
(Por'tre, 


[ Po'et-re. 


Potatoes, 

Prairie, 

Presumptuous, 


Po-ta/ters, 

Per-rare'rah, 

Pre-zump'chus, 


Po-ta/toze. 

Pray're. 

Pre-zump'tu-us. 


Quoits, 


Quates, 


Quoyts. 


Radish, 
Real, 
Really, 
Rosin, 


Red'ish, 
Reel, 
Roe'ly, 
Roz'om, 


Rad'ish. 
Ree'al. 
Ree'al-ly. 
Roz'in. 


Sausage, 
Shampoo, 
Stamp, (verb) 
Sword, 
Swollen, 


Sos'-ege, 

Sham-poon', 

Stomp, 

Sword, 

Swul'ii, 


Saw'sege. 

Sham-poo'. 

Stami). 

Sord: 

Swole'n. 


Tassel, 

Terrible, 

Theatre, 


Tos'l, 
Tur'rib-bl, 
The B-a'ter, 


Tas'l. 

Ter'rib-bl. 

Thee'et-er. 



{Th pronoTXEced as in Theodore.) 



VULGAR PKONUNCIATIOXS. 



239 



Traverse, 


Tra-verse'. 


Trav'erse. 


Tremendous, 


Tre-men'jus, 


Tre-men'dus. 


Tomatoes, 


r To-mats', 
1 To-mat'esses, 


I To-mat'oze. 


Tour, 


Tower, 


Toor. 


Tuesday, 


( Tooz'day, 
\ Tchuze'day, 


1 Tuze'day.* 


Tussle, 


Tos'l, 


Tus'l. 


Tribune, 


Tribe'une, 


Trib'une. 


Turpentine, 


Tur'pen-time, 
' Um-ber-rel', 
Um-ber-rerah, 


Tur'pen-tine. 


Umbrella, 


New England. 

Um'bril, 


• Um-brel'ah. 




^ Am'bril, 


^ 


Watermelon, 


War'ter-mil-yun, War'ter-mel-un 


Yacbt, 


Yat, 


Yot. 



^^When the long u is preceded, in the same 
syllable, by any one of the consonants d, tj /, w, 
s, and th, it is peculiarly difficult to introduce the 
sound of y ; and hence negligent speakers omit it en- 
tirely, pronouncing duty, dooty ; tune, toon ; lute, 
loot ; nuisance, noosance ; suit, soot ; thurible, thoori- 
ble, etc. The reason is, that in forming these con- 
sonants the organs are in a position to pass with 
perfect ease to the sound of oo, while it is veiy diffi- 
cult in doing so to touch the intermediate y; hence 
the y in such cases is very apt to be dropped. On 
this point Smart remarks, ' To say tube (tyoob), lucid 
(lyoocid), with the u as perfect [i. e , with a distinct 
bound of// prefixed to oo] as in cube, cubic, mute, etc.. 



210 VULGAR PRONUNCIATIONS. 

is either northern or laboriously pedantic/ — a des- 
cription which applies to the vulgar in our Eastern 
States, and to those who are over-nice at the South. 
The practice of good society is to let the y sink into 
a very brief sound of long e or of short i^ both of 
which have a very close organic relationship to con- 
sonant y. Special care must be taken not only to 
make this sound as brief as possible, but to pronounce 
it in the same syllable with the oo. "We thus avoid 
the two extremes, of overdoing, on the one hand, by 
making too much of the y^ and, on the other hand, 
of sounding only the oo after the manner of careless 
speakers." — Principles of Pronunciation, Webster's 
Dictionary. 



INDEX. 



"Agreeably disappoint- 
ed," 103 
Alford, Rev. Henry, 

Dean of Canterbury, 7,10 
Allow iov say, 100,101 

Amateur, 62,63 

" A most a beautiful," 

etc., 147 

Announcement of sta- 
tion, 42,43 
Any for at all, 120 
A person — if — they, 77,78 
Artiste for actor or ac- 
tress, 29 
B 
Babe for hdby, 167 
Bad for hadly, 122 
Balance for remain- 
der, 108,109 
Begun for began, 85 
"Between you and I," 71 
Biddable, 135 
Bouquet, 63 
Buried for lost, 168,169 
" But that,"—" But 
what," 131-133 
C 
Casket for coffin, 169 
Centralization of edu- 
cation in European 
cities, 10-12 
Come for came, 85 



Connoisseur, G3 

Contemptible for C07i- 

temptuous, 118 

Convenient fov near, 120,121 
Couple for ^zoo, 126 

D 
D^Szi^f, 64 

Despisable, 134 

Deux Temps, 63,64 

" Did not see him but 

once," 129,130 

"Did not do (or say) 

nothing," 128,129 

"Died hardly," 124,125 
Disremember, 134 

"Do not like too much," 146 
DonTcey for ass, 36,37 

"Do not doubt but 

that," 131,132 

Due for owing, 118,119 

E 
Either,— or, 121 

Either for each, 122,123 
lllite, 29 

"Embalming surgeon," 

169,170 
Emphasizing some of 

the particles of 

speech, 163,164 

England, cultivation of 

the classics in, 5,6 

English, the study of, 5-17 
" Equally as good," 137 

241 



242 



INDEX. 



" Equally as good' as," 137 
Esprit de corps, 31 

Etagtre, 64 

Everett, Edward — views 

on education, 16 

'^ Extra nice," 142,143 

F 

Female, 48-50 

'•' For to go," etc., 138 
" Free to say," — " Free 

to confess," 166 

French Academy, 10,11 

" From lie who," 71,72 

o 

Genteel, 47,48 

Gentleman, well-bred, 44 
Gentleman (gentleman 

friend), 44,45 

Gents, 51 

''Get under weigh," 105,106 
Good for ivell, 122 

Gotten for got, 134 

Gould, Mr .'Edwards., 8 
Gums for gum-shoes, 52 

H 

'^Had not hardly," 130,131 
" Had ought to," 86 

Hall iov entry, 112,113 
" Hardly for hard,'' 124,125 
Harrison, Rev. Mat- 
thew, 9,18 
''Has a right to do it," 

146,147 
" Has Ijegan," 85 

"Heap, top of the," 19 

Hence, from, 136 

" Him and me went." 73 



" Him staying," etc., 
Hors de combat. 



74 
31 



" Id omne genus," 33 

" I have saw," 81-83 

Illy for ill, 135 

" In any shape or 

form," 137 

In for into, 119 

Individual for man, 60,61 
"In our midst," - 143-145 
" Introduced to a gen- 
tleman," • 173,174 
" I seemed to think," 146 
"I seen," 83 
I see for I saw, 83,84 
"Is not improving much, 

I don't think," 129 

" It is me," 73 

'' It is one of the sub- 
jects that is," 78,79 
"I wanted very much 
to have gone," 87-89 



Jeopardize, 


107 


"Justaslivs," 


147 


K 




Kids for kid-gloves, 


52 


L 




Lady, fine, witty, chari- 


table, etc, 


40,41 


Lady, first-class, 


47 


Lady, how is your ? 


45 


Lady, I am the, 


41,42 


Lady (lady-fi-iend). 


44,45 


Lady, Mr. So^and- 


30 


and; 


45,46 



INDEX. 



243 



Lady, respectable, 


43,44 


Lady, sales-, 


43 


Lady, very Piuch of, 47 


Lady, well-bred. 


44 


Lady, wet-nurse, 


44 


Lay for lie, 


98 


Lafayette, 


65 


Learn for teach. 


101 


" Let's you and I,' 


70,71 


Like for as, 


123 


Limbs for legs, 


34,35 


Lit for lighted. 


99 


Lit for alighted, 


99 


Love for like. 


101,102 


M 




Marsh, Hon. Greor^e 


P., 


8 


Materiel, 


32 


Minny for minim or 


mwi?iow. 


125 


Moon,Mr.G.Wasliin.c:- 


ton, F. R. S. L., 


8,10,185 


il/bsi^ for almost, 


126 


" Mutual friend," 


55,56 


N ■ 




"Natural talent," 


138-141 


Neither — nor. 


121 


*' New beginner." 


136,137 


Non-practical ed 


uca- 


tion, 


14-17 


Not— Nor, 


121 


"Not one of that kind," 




170,171 


Notoriety for distinc- 


tion, 


110,111 


Nubia for nuhe, 


ee 







Omission of the apos- 


trophic "s," 


148-152 



Omission of the final 

"g" in pronunciatioQ, 148 
G-nly for except or unless, 117 
Ornary, 126,127 

Overly, 135 

P 
Pants, 51,52 

Party ^ov person, 57-60 
"Pay a call," for "pay 

a visit," 166 

Piano, 65,66 

Plead ^ox pleaded, 85,86 
Predicate for base, 102,103 
Prejudiced for prepos- 
sessed, 103-105 
Press, some of the re- 
porters for and cor- 
respondents of, 25-29 
Preventative for pre- 
ventive, 109 
Professor, 170 
Proven iov proved, 134 

Q 

Quite for considerable 
or large, 119,120 

R 
Raise iov rise, 99 

Raised ior reared, 167,168 
Reference for recom- 
mendation, 109 
Refinement, the basis of, 182 
Residence for house, 113-116 
Rig for dress, 167 
Rise for 7'aise, 99 
" Robert he," — " Susan 

she," 137,138 

Role fov part, 29 

Rooster, 35,36 

Rur.he, 64,65 



244 



INDEX. 



S 
Savants for savant, 65 
^'Seemed to think," 146 
Set for sit, 99 

Sett for set, 135 

Shall and will, con- 
founding of, 92-96 
Should and would, con- 
founding of, 96,97 
Signalize for signal, 106,107 
Simplicity, want of, 22,33 
Slang, 18-21 
Some for somewhat, 120 
Sobriquet, 31 
Stamps, he has the, 20 
Step in for walk in, 164-166 
Stopping for staying, 

123,124 
Such for so, 125 

Sweat for perspiration, 

171-173 
T 
Taste, a standard of, 

153-159 
Taste, not an arbitra- 
ry law, 155 



Taste, in social inter- 
course, 156,157 
Tasty and tastily, 166,167 
That, that, that, 89-91 
"Them things," 75,76 
Thence, from, 136 
"This here,"— "that 

there," 138 

" To simply state," etc., 145 

u 

Unbeknown, , 135 

w 

" Were drank," 85 

Whence, from, 136 

Who for whom, 76 

Whom for who, 77 

Wife for woman, girl, 

lady, 111,112 

Wilson, Mr. John, 148,150 
Wrench for rinse, 99,100 

Y 
" You know," and "says 
I," "says he," "says 
she," 160-163 

"You was," 79,80 



NOTICES OF THE PRESS. 

The New York Times, 
* Vulgarisms and Other Errors of Speech' is a neat little 
> book, containing much good sense. Its author, whose name 
is not given, makes no pretensions to have contributed any 
great wisdom to the subject, but modestly attempts to draw 
public attention to many errors into which all are apt to 
wander, through the inattention of free conversation or gen- 
eral habits of carelessness — some of the evils pointed out 
being, as the title suggests, absolute vulgarisms, tolerated 
because they have, unfortunately, become familiar, and 
others, the mistakes of even well-educated persons, and 
made falsely respectable by reckless repetition. We should 
think this chatty, pleasant volume might do much good, as, 
while it deals with many errors that most readers will deem 
unnecessary to be warned against, there are few people who 
will not be able to recognize at least a few of their own lia- 
bilities to inaccurate speech, in its pages. 

The National Intelligencer. 
The small volume, consisting of some two hundred duo- 
decimo pages, is much more useful for general use than 
either of the volumes we have mentioned, being less rigidly 
critical, and perhaps less captious than those, and more 
plain and practical. The work is marked by good sense 
throughout, and is very valuable to all who desire to improve 
their style of composition. **The Newspaper Keporters" 
are treated to some valuable counsel, and the illustrations 
of their errors, with appropriate practical advice, form some 
of the most excellent passages in the volume. 



^l NOTICES OF THE PRESS. 

The volume is written in a very concise and perspicuous 
style, and we cordially commend it to the attention of the 
classes for which it is intended. 

The New York Independent. 
A treatise on 'Vulgarisms and Other Errors of Speech* 
contains much that is very valuable. 

Godey's Lady's Book. 
The author of this book is the champion of good English. 
He does not write for philologists nor for the readers of Max 
Miiller ; but he steps forth like a true knight of chivalry to 
give his help where it is needed. He writes for the large 
and respectable classes, including most of our people, who 
have not had the privilege of thorough education or of high 
culture. All his counsel may be taken without any excep- 
tion. He is judicious, and understands his own purpose, 
which is to root out "slang" from the conversation of edu- 
cated Americans. There is much that will interest and 
amuse while it ins^tructs ; refinement of feeling and delicacy 
of taste so mark even the severest touches of criticism, that 
the work cannot fail of a welcome wherever it is read. There 
is a satisfaction in the admiration of the learned ; but he 
who instructs and elevates "the masses" is the greatest bene- 
factor of mankind. 

The North American and United States Gazette, 
It is written in a quiet and by no means hypercritical 
spirit. While particularly intended for those of small cul- 
ture, many, of its facts and hints will be useful to scholars. 

The Age. 
This is not one of those learnedly critical treatises on the 
correct and incorrect uses of words in the English language, 



NOTICES OF THE TRESS. 3 

of which several have beea published during a few years 

past, but is an attempt to present simply and practically the 
common faults and errors of every-day conversation, which 
have crept likewise into the literary efforts of experienced 
writers. 

The Press. 
'Vulgarisms and Other Errors of Speech, including a 
Chapter on Taste, and one containing Examples of Bad 
Taste' (IGmo. pp. 194), is a little volume in the right direc- 
tion. Colloquial and other vulgarisms are pointed out. 

The Inquirer. 
That "the pure wells of English"' should remain "undefiled" 
is the anxious and laudable desire of the author of this pithy 
little book. Murderers of the " King's English" are his spe- 
cial aversion ; he boldly points out their misdeeds, and advises 
them how to reform their grievous faults of grammar. 

The Evening Bulletin. 
A very handy phrase-book for ordinary American homes 
is the neat little treatise on 'Vulgarisms,' recently issued by 
Claxton, Remsen & HAFfELFiNQEB, 819 and 821 Market 
Street, Philadelphia. 

The Evening Telegraph. 
The work before us is excellent. It is a clear and brief 
Btatement of the many errors which have been gradually 
growing up in society, and which, wherever tolerated, are 
certainly inelegant. 

The Evening Star. 
We would especially commend it to those who desire to 
cultivate an avoidance of the slang and vulgar words and 
expressions which, within a few years, have crept into our 



4 NOTICES OF THE PRESS. 

language, and -which, by slow but certain degrees, are being 
thoroughly incorporated with it. 

The City Item. 
This is a hand-book which will be found of great value by 
the speaker and writer as well as by the man of business. 
There are few people who are not puzzled now and then as 
to the correctness of a phrase as well as in regard to the 
spelling of a word. With a good dictionary and this little 
work, we should ask no further help in the proper use of our 
language. 

The Sunday Dispatch. 
This is a plainly written, analytic, sensible, and most 
useful volume. It is difficult to escape the utterance of vul- 
garisms, particularly in the haste and partial excitement of 
animated conversation. 

The Episcopalian. 
We believe this is the first publication of the new and en- 
terprising firm whose imprint it bears. We are gratified to 
find the work is not a novel, but a good and useful book on 
language. 

Methodist Home Journal. 

To people who are either unwittingly, or through sheer 
carelessness in their habits and modes of expression, trifling 
with our correct and elegant Anglo-Saxon language, this 
book will prove highly serviceable as a needed monitor. 
With a just appreciation of pure good English, the author 
proceeds to expose the unpardonable slang, indelicacy, and 
vulgarism so common and popular at the present day. Gram- 
matical errors, obsolete phrases, and the whole tribe of tau- 
tological terms, are also reviewed, and examples given of 
what is rated in bad taste. 

We wish this book great success in the cause of reform. 



NOTICES OF THE PEESS. 5 

York True Democrat. 
The little book before us aims to give an insight into what 
is required to correct the abuses of speech, into which many 
have fallen, by copious examples of a vitiated style of con- 
versation, and its proper correction. The use of slang 
phraseology, now so common, is commented upon most ap- 
propriately, and is at once amusing and instructive. A care- 
ful study of this entertaining book would be productive of 
pleasure as well as profit to all. 



The Muncey Summary. 
As its title indicates, it is chiefly devoted to vulgarisms and 
other errors of speech, and may be read and studied with 
interest and profit by all classes. 

The Bloomsburgh Republican. 
This is a little volume as full of interest as it is valuable. 
It is got up in neat style and should be read by all plasses. 

The Washington Eeporter (Pa.) 
We have read it with interest and profit. . . . 
The study of this book, or one like it, will do much for 
any one, and especially for those who have either never 
learned grammar, or having learned it have forgotten it. 
There is no pedantry about it. It is simple, plain, and clear, 
yet establishes what it asserts. There are hundreds of per- 
sons who are daily, in all their conversation and writing, 
violating the plainest rules of grammar, who by a little at- 
tention, with a good boolr, could soon vastly improve them- 
selves. To such we would commend this book on vulgarisms. 
It would be a good one to have lying on the drawing-room 
table of every home, to be consulted in every doubtful case 
by old and young. 
17 



6 NOTICES OF THE PEESS. 

The Daily State Guard. 
The author has produced a very readable and work, even 
those who are classed among the refined and well educated 
may find abundant limits for the improvement of their modes 
of expressing themselves, from these recorded results of the 
well-applied observation of the editor. 

The Nashville Eepublican Banner. 
It is one of the most sensible books of the day, and one 
that every young man, and especially every young writer, 
should study carefully. 

The Springfield Daily Republican. 
Claxton, Remsbn & Haffelfinger, of Philadelphia, pub- 
lish a little book that should be studied carefully by all young 
writers, and a thorough perusal of which would do many 
older ones good ; a book that ought to be the constant com- 
panion of all shoddy aristocrats, and which would be a val- 
uable text-book in all our public schools. It is entitled ' Vul- 
garisnfs and Other Errors of Speech,' and includes a chapter 
on Taste, and one containing examples of bad Taste. "We 
don't know where better advice, or more of it, upon the 
proper use of our language, can be found in the same com- 
pass as in this little volume. 

The Geoi'getown Press (Del.) 
This work treats of erroi-s and the improprieties of speech, 
'so prevalent and yet so offensive to good taste, the incorpo- 
ration of which into our language must be resisted. De- 
signed to maintain the purity of the English, the book is 
worthy of a kind reception, and ought to be circulated. 

The Proof Sheet, Philadelphia. 

He who has the discernment to perceive the inaccuracies 

and inelegancies of speech, more or less prevalent even among 



NOTICES OF THE PRESS. 7 

people who claim to be somewhat educated and refined, does 
not always possess the industry and care requisite for point- 
ing them out. Accordingly, we have a kindly feeling for 
one who executes such a task with patience and judgment. 
The little work just named brings together, concisely and 
happily, the principal verbal errors and vulgarisms which 
are too frequently exhibited in a large part of the society in 
which the best educated among us more or less move. 

The Publisher and Bookseller. 
Claxtox, Remsen & Haffelfinger are publishing some 
very excellent books. "We have from them ' Vulgarisms and 
Other Errors of Speech.' It is a most useful little work, 
wherein a considerable amount of valuable information is 
done up in a very small compass. It is a veritable multum 
in parvo, showing the many and gross errors of speech in 
which even those who have some pretensions to education 
are wont to fall. 

The Western Bookseller. 
The title of this little volume fully explains its character. 
It is, at the same time, good reading, and a serviceable book 
for every one, as its perusal will serve to correct many of 
the common errors or vulgarisms of speech which result from 
ignorance or carelessness. It will be largely sought by those 
who have not enjoyed the advantages of early education. 

The Chicago Evening Jaurnal. 
Twenty chapters are devoted to an exposition of common 
slang phrases and corruptions of various languages, princi- 
pally our own, and these are written in a manner that all 
may understand wherein the errors lie, and how they should 
be corrected. 



8 NOTICES OF THE PEESS. 

The Chicago Post. 
One of a class of books which is now becoming very pop- 
ular. We are all much given to license in matters of speech, 
and need such correctives. This volume does not profess 
to enter deeply into the study of words, but calls attention, 
in a familiar way, to many common errors in language. We 
were about to commend particularly the chapters on Gram- 
matical Errors and on the use of shall and will, but every 
chapter is so replete with good sense and useful information 
that we refrain from discriminating. 

The Hnntingdou Globe (Pa.) 
We have received a book entitled 'Vulgarisms and Other 
Errors of Speech,' which, if placed in the hands of many ■ 
who murder the King's English, would be a material aid in 
teaching them to avoid the popular vulgarisms and use of 
improper words. 

The Farm Journal. 
'Vulgarisms and Other Errors of Speech' is the title of a 
neat volume just issued from the press of our friends Clax- 
TON, E,emsp:n & Haffelfinger, of this city. While this 
volume may not be said to be faultless, it nevertheless 
abounds in so much that is truthful, and what a large ma- 
jority of the world should know, that we cannot commend it 
too strongly to general attention. Its object, as its name 
implies, is to point out the many broad vulgarisms and glar 
ing errors of speech, which are in such every day use, and 
by a process of simple but convincing reasoning, demonstrate 
the fact that it is just as easy to avoid these vulgarisms, and 
to speak grammatically, as it is to use them and indulge in 
inaccuracies of speech, always harsh and grat'ng to refined 
ears. We commend this volume to young men especially. 
A perusal of it can do no harm, even though the reader 
should not stand open to the reproofs it administers. 



i.^^iZi/- 



' ^ V^ 




'^^^ ^--'^-^ -^^ s. ^^ '' 





-0^ 




UBRARVOFCONCRESS 




